5 ms·

That's nationalism. Not all of us are nationalists. But unfortunately, there are enough nationalists out there that the governments skew nationalist. A national

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.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    > Here is a suggestion: US is stockpiling tens of millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses. The U.S. is stockpiling them because AstraZeneca might get approval and then they can use them. They are hedging their bets. It's a sensible policy. > Not a measly 4 million doses. Sure, maybe we should just take them back then? > What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world. The E.U. has shipped like 34 million vaccines [1]. Why are people abroad more important than its own citizens? But let's not sit here and pretend that the E.U. is saving the world here with this number of vaccines. For every elderly person they vaccinate in some other country, it's one elderly or at-risk person in the E.U. who isn't getting vaccinated. At the end of the day it'll be the U.S. and U.K. (and maybe Israel) who will be vaccinating much of the world. "Italy was able to block the shipment to Australia last week under a new emergency rule that allows any E.U. member to halt exports of the vaccines produced in the bloc." [2] As I said - the E.U. is going to be in hot water over this and it's going to severely test the resolve of the union to stay together. Sending those 34 million doses out instead of vaccinating E.U. citizens is ammo for nationalists and far-right sympathizers. > But here we are now, blaming the only one who is keeping Canadians (and other non-superpower nations) alive. I'm not blaming anyone. You're blaming the U.S. and U.K. for protecting their citizens first and foremost. > What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world. Beats me. The U.S. is going to wind up shipping more vaccines to other countries than any other country. Watch and see. [1] [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/world/europe/eu-exports-covid-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/world/europe/eu-exports-c...
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      I have said everything and I have nothing to add. All I can say is, it is easy to defend unfairness when it benefits oneself, rather than when it hurts them. You see the same thing with the discussions about structural racism, when those who benefit from the existing system defend the status quo, not because they are moustache-twirling villains, but because human mind has a way of convincing them what is in their benefit is what is good and just. Rich people genuinely believe reducing taxes on the rich benefits everyone; lobbyists truly believe in what they lobby for; etc. As someone on the other end of this, I cannot agree with your standpoint. "Countries should secure vaccines for all their citizens before exporting any vaccine" translates to "in an ideal world a few thousand more Canadians would die to save a dozen or so Americans/British/Europeans, and it's all fair and just" because that's the final outcome of the policies you advocate for. I imagine you are looking at this from the POV of someone who benefits from this (perhaps you are a resident of US or UK) so you have convinced yourself this is the best approach. I cannot agree. > For every elderly person they vaccinate in some other country, it's one elderly or at-risk person in the E.U. who isn't getting vaccinated. No. US is saying "no vaccine for anyone else until we have vaccine for every American" not just elderly Americans. While the US is busy putting vaccines in stockpile for 16 years olds, other nations' 90 years olds will die.

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.
- ericmay 6y ago
  > Here is a suggestion: US is stockpiling tens of millions of AstraZeneca vaccine doses. The U.S. is stockpiling them because AstraZeneca might get approval and then they can use them. They are hedging their bets. It's a sensible policy. > Not a measly 4 million doses. Sure, maybe we should just take them back then? > What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world. The E.U. has shipped like 34 million vaccines [1]. Why are people abroad more important than its own citizens? But let's not sit here and pretend that the E.U. is saving the world here with this number of vaccines. For every elderly person they vaccinate in some other country, it's one elderly or at-risk person in the E.U. who isn't getting vaccinated. At the end of the day it'll be the U.S. and U.K. (and maybe Israel) who will be vaccinating much of the world. "Italy was able to block the shipment to Australia last week under a new emergency rule that allows any E.U. member to halt exports of the vaccines produced in the bloc." [2] As I said - the E.U. is going to be in hot water over this and it's going to severely test the resolve of the union to stay together. Sending those 34 million doses out instead of vaccinating E.U. citizens is ammo for nationalists and far-right sympathizers. > But here we are now, blaming the only one who is keeping Canadians (and other non-superpower nations) alive. I'm not blaming anyone. You're blaming the U.S. and U.K. for protecting their citizens first and foremost. > What could have EU done to be in a better position that would not have screwed over almost the entire rest of the world. Beats me. The U.S. is going to wind up shipping more vaccines to other countries than any other country. Watch and see. [1] [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/world/europe/eu-exports-covid-vaccine.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/10/world/europe/eu-exports-c...
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    I have said everything and I have nothing to add. All I can say is, it is easy to defend unfairness when it benefits oneself, rather than when it hurts them. You see the same thing with the discussions about structural racism, when those who benefit from the existing system defend the status quo, not because they are moustache-twirling villains, but because human mind has a way of convincing them what is in their benefit is what is good and just. Rich people genuinely believe reducing taxes on the rich benefits everyone; lobbyists truly believe in what they lobby for; etc. As someone on the other end of this, I cannot agree with your standpoint. "Countries should secure vaccines for all their citizens before exporting any vaccine" translates to "in an ideal world a few thousand more Canadians would die to save a dozen or so Americans/British/Europeans, and it's all fair and just" because that's the final outcome of the policies you advocate for. I imagine you are looking at this from the POV of someone who benefits from this (perhaps you are a resident of US or UK) so you have convinced yourself this is the best approach. I cannot agree. > For every elderly person they vaccinate in some other country, it's one elderly or at-risk person in the E.U. who isn't getting vaccinated. No. US is saying "no vaccine for anyone else until we have vaccine for every American" not just elderly Americans. While the US is busy putting vaccines in stockpile for 16 years olds, other nations' 90 years olds will die.