5 ms·

Yea... idk how I feel about this. It's definitely the responsibility of a country to protect its citizens first and foremost above all others. On the other hand

Yea... idk how I feel about this. It's definitely the responsibility of a country to protect its citizens first and foremost above all others. On the other hand, maybe once the majority of what would be considered at-risk is vaccinated then a country could export vaccines, but that's really just the prerogative of the country. As a citizen of the U.S. I would be livid if we were exporting vaccines to other countries before we were mostly vaccinated here in my country. It would also severely undermine trust in the U.S. government and give fuel to those who seek to isolate the country from the rest of the world. What better example of "put others ahead of your own countrymen" could you make up? Anyway - the US is exporting vaccines to Mexico and Canada [1]. You should (as a Canadian) start to see lots of vaccine shipments come in from the U.S. as the supply chain juggernaut awakens. I'm not sure what help Canada will actually get from the EU. So far I've seen little in the way of actual numbers. I see the U.S. and U.K. looking very strong after initially not so great reactions to the virus. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-to-send-combined-4-million-doses-of-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-to-mexico-canada-in-first-export-of-shots/2021/03/18/1229d450-8807-11eb-be4a-24b89f616f2c_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-to-send-combined-...

realityking 6y ago
The EU has already exported 3.9 million doses to Canada. 3.1 million to Mexico and 1 million to the US (source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_1121 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_...) Meanwhile the US is now exporting (as a loan!) 2.5 million doses to Mexico and 1.5 million to Canada (source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56451810 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56451810) acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US. A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage. I understand - but disagree with - you stance that a country should put its own citizens first. In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  I am happy that the EU allows vaccine exports but I expect this pandemic to be the last one they do. Voters in US and UK are happy and praising their government. Voters in EU are not so happy. They are going to elect a government which would put EU citizens first. Non-US/UK/EU citizens would of course be in favour of a robust export and sharing program, but they don't get a say, so vaccine nationalism will win.
- ericmay 6y ago
  > acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US. "Under the agreement, the countries must return any excess doses to the US." I see 0 problem with this. > A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage. Yep no problem with this either... > In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten. I think you're severely underestimating how quickly the U.S. is vaccinating and how quickly these shipments will hit the rest of the world. There are ~8 billion people on Earth, and the U.S. and U.K. are leading the way [1] in vaccinating their populations. Once the U.S. is fully vaccinated, tens of millions of doses will flow to the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S. Hell, the U.S. has administered almost more doses than Russia, India, and China combined but those are the countries that will save the world? C'mon. I personally don't understand the "your country shouldn't put its own citizens first" mentality. It's honestly just incompatible with my own world view as we currently see the world. I mean, we need minimum wage increases here in the U.S. - why isn't the E.U. paying? [2] This notion is just not very reflective of how the world works, or how humans work for that matter. I guess if the E.U. wants to export all its vaccines so E.U. citizens (why do they even have citizenship? why is it even an organization? Why are there even member states?) get them last - that's their prerogative and I'm sure the E.U. voters will support or reject that. In the U.S. and U.K. I think we take the view that you have to put your mask on first before you help someone put theirs on. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccina... [2] This notion is easy to dismiss. If you truly believed this you'd feed starving kids in other places instead of your own or any of your friends or relatives. Nobody operates this way so why pretend that nations must?
smnrchrds 6y ago
That's nationalism. Not all of us are nationalists. But unfortunately, there are enough nationalists out there that the governments skew nationalist. A nationalist would say "if I had to choose either one of my fellow countrymen die or 7900 citizens of my neighbouring country die, I would choose to have that 7900 people die without a second's hesitation". A non-nationalist would not find this moral or justifiable. By all accounts, by the time the US approves AstraZeneca vaccine, it would have enough Pfizer/Moderna doses to vaccinate the whole country. Yet it prefers to keep the stockpile (I know about the recent deal with Canada and Mexico. It's very small and very late compared to what it could have been in a better world) rather than send it to other countries, where they can save lives instead of sitting in a freezer to keep voters happy, not to keep them safe.
- ericmay 6y ago
  > A nationalist would say... This is a silly hypothetical and it paints people with reasonable beliefs in a bad light. The duty of a country is to protect its people no? Of course it's going to weigh a complicated situation and err on the side of protecting its own citizens. Otherwise why even pay taxes or have a government? > By all accounts, by the time the US approves AstraZeneca vaccine, it would have enough Pfizer/Moderna doses to vaccinate the whole country. Yet it prefers to keep the stockpile (I know about the recent deal with Canada and Mexico. It's very small and very late compared to what it could have been in a better world) rather than send it to other countries, where they can save lives instead of sitting in a freezer to keep voters happy, not to keep them safe. I hear lots of complaints but not much in the way of useful suggestions or actions - and keeping some vaccines in stock seems to be a prudent move. You can't save others if you can't secure yourself. The E.U. is going to be in hot water over this. The failure of the E.U. and subsequent blaming of the U.K. and U.S. for taking care of its citizens looks really bad. You can't make this stuff up and it's going to empower separatists and right-wingers.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    Here is a suggestion: US is stockpiling tens of millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses. If they send them to countries which have not finished vaccinating their elderly, they will save many lives. They are not doing any good in storage. Just send them. Not a measly 4 million doses. Send 30 million doses and save lives. The US is on track to vaccinate all Americans using Pfizer and Moderna alone before AstraZeneca is expected to be approved for use in US. Why not save some lives with it? > This is a silly hypothetical and it paints people with reasonable beliefs in a bad light. We disagree on what is and isn't reasonable. Maybe it was unfair. It's more like "if any of those politicians dares to save 7900 foreigners instead of 1 of my fellow countrymen, I will vote them out of the office." The final outcome is the same. It's just done through an extra layer of indirection, so everyone can continue feeling good about themselves. > The E.U. is going to be in hot water over this. The failure of the E.U. and subsequent blaming of the U.K. and U.S. for taking care of its citizens looks really bad. Oh, the EU will be in hot water, but not because the failure of EU. It's because it is shouldering a burden alone, a burden that should have been shared. Right now, US supplies US, UK supplies UK, and EU supplies the entire world with mRNA vaccines. What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world? As a Canadian, should I hope for an EU that would nationalize vaccines the next pandemic, like US and UK did this pandemic? If all three were exporting vaccines, the world would have been a better place and fewer people would have been dead. But here we are now, blaming the only one who is keeping Canadians (and other non-superpower nations) alive.
max-ibel 6y ago
Countries looking out for themselves in this fashion likely behave shortsightedly. Having Covid ravage e.g. Brazil and in effect use this country as a bioreactor for mutations does put e.g. the US at grave risk. Now Brazil has other problems than vaccine availability, but the principle of altruism being in the own interest still is valid. This is a tragedy of the commons that is very tragic indeed. And very little seems to be done to combat the demagogy.

realityking 6y ago

The EU has already exported 3.9 million doses to Canada. 3.1 million to Mexico and 1 million to the US (source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_1121 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_...) Meanwhile the US is now exporting (as a loan!) 2.5 million doses to Mexico and 1.5 million to Canada (source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56451810 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56451810) acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US. A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage. I understand - but disagree with - you stance that a country should put its own citizens first. In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten.

smnrchrds 6y ago
I am happy that the EU allows vaccine exports but I expect this pandemic to be the last one they do. Voters in US and UK are happy and praising their government. Voters in EU are not so happy. They are going to elect a government which would put EU citizens first. Non-US/UK/EU citizens would of course be in favour of a robust export and sharing program, but they don't get a say, so vaccine nationalism will win.
ericmay 6y ago
> acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US. "Under the agreement, the countries must return any excess doses to the US." I see 0 problem with this. > A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage. Yep no problem with this either... > In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten. I think you're severely underestimating how quickly the U.S. is vaccinating and how quickly these shipments will hit the rest of the world. There are ~8 billion people on Earth, and the U.S. and U.K. are leading the way [1] in vaccinating their populations. Once the U.S. is fully vaccinated, tens of millions of doses will flow to the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S. Hell, the U.S. has administered almost more doses than Russia, India, and China combined but those are the countries that will save the world? C'mon. I personally don't understand the "your country shouldn't put its own citizens first" mentality. It's honestly just incompatible with my own world view as we currently see the world. I mean, we need minimum wage increases here in the U.S. - why isn't the E.U. paying? [2] This notion is just not very reflective of how the world works, or how humans work for that matter. I guess if the E.U. wants to export all its vaccines so E.U. citizens (why do they even have citizenship? why is it even an organization? Why are there even member states?) get them last - that's their prerogative and I'm sure the E.U. voters will support or reject that. In the U.S. and U.K. I think we take the view that you have to put your mask on first before you help someone put theirs on. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccinations-tracker.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccina... [2] This notion is easy to dismiss. If you truly believed this you'd feed starving kids in other places instead of your own or any of your friends or relatives. Nobody operates this way so why pretend that nations must?

smnrchrds 6y ago

That's nationalism. Not all of us are nationalists. But unfortunately, there are enough nationalists out there that the governments skew nationalist. A nationalist would say "if I had to choose either one of my fellow countrymen die or 7900 citizens of my neighbouring country die, I would choose to have that 7900 people die without a second's hesitation". A non-nationalist would not find this moral or justifiable. By all accounts, by the time the US approves AstraZeneca vaccine, it would have enough Pfizer/Moderna doses to vaccinate the whole country. Yet it prefers to keep the stockpile (I know about the recent deal with Canada and Mexico. It's very small and very late compared to what it could have been in a better world) rather than send it to other countries, where they can save lives instead of sitting in a freezer to keep voters happy, not to keep them safe.

ericmay 6y ago
> A nationalist would say... This is a silly hypothetical and it paints people with reasonable beliefs in a bad light. The duty of a country is to protect its people no? Of course it's going to weigh a complicated situation and err on the side of protecting its own citizens. Otherwise why even pay taxes or have a government? > By all accounts, by the time the US approves AstraZeneca vaccine, it would have enough Pfizer/Moderna doses to vaccinate the whole country. Yet it prefers to keep the stockpile (I know about the recent deal with Canada and Mexico. It's very small and very late compared to what it could have been in a better world) rather than send it to other countries, where they can save lives instead of sitting in a freezer to keep voters happy, not to keep them safe. I hear lots of complaints but not much in the way of useful suggestions or actions - and keeping some vaccines in stock seems to be a prudent move. You can't save others if you can't secure yourself. The E.U. is going to be in hot water over this. The failure of the E.U. and subsequent blaming of the U.K. and U.S. for taking care of its citizens looks really bad. You can't make this stuff up and it's going to empower separatists and right-wingers.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  Here is a suggestion: US is stockpiling tens of millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses. If they send them to countries which have not finished vaccinating their elderly, they will save many lives. They are not doing any good in storage. Just send them. Not a measly 4 million doses. Send 30 million doses and save lives. The US is on track to vaccinate all Americans using Pfizer and Moderna alone before AstraZeneca is expected to be approved for use in US. Why not save some lives with it? > This is a silly hypothetical and it paints people with reasonable beliefs in a bad light. We disagree on what is and isn't reasonable. Maybe it was unfair. It's more like "if any of those politicians dares to save 7900 foreigners instead of 1 of my fellow countrymen, I will vote them out of the office." The final outcome is the same. It's just done through an extra layer of indirection, so everyone can continue feeling good about themselves. > The E.U. is going to be in hot water over this. The failure of the E.U. and subsequent blaming of the U.K. and U.S. for taking care of its citizens looks really bad. Oh, the EU will be in hot water, but not because the failure of EU. It's because it is shouldering a burden alone, a burden that should have been shared. Right now, US supplies US, UK supplies UK, and EU supplies the entire world with mRNA vaccines. What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world? As a Canadian, should I hope for an EU that would nationalize vaccines the next pandemic, like US and UK did this pandemic? If all three were exporting vaccines, the world would have been a better place and fewer people would have been dead. But here we are now, blaming the only one who is keeping Canadians (and other non-superpower nations) alive.

max-ibel 6y ago

Countries looking out for themselves in this fashion likely behave shortsightedly. Having Covid ravage e.g. Brazil and in effect use this country as a bioreactor for mutations does put e.g. the US at grave risk. Now Brazil has other problems than vaccine availability, but the principle of altruism being in the own interest still is valid. This is a tragedy of the commons that is very tragic indeed. And very little seems to be done to combat the demagogy.