4 ms·

> 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 an

> 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
  Great. Now you're trying to lump me in with "rich people" and "racists"? Do better. > "Countries should secure vaccines for all their citizens before exporting any vaccine" ... why shouldn't they? Does a country have a duty to protect its people from harm? If my country isn't willing to put my life before everyone else in the world what's the point? And why are you drawing a line at vaccines? Why isn't Germany or France paying for minimum wage across the world? Why isn't the German army full time engaged in saving people in war-torn countries? Why isn't the E.U. giving free medicine to all people across the world? I'm all for abolishing nation states. I get it. But let's not sit here and act like the U.S. is some big bad nationalistic monster here when you're just picking an arbitrary (and potentially convenient) line to draw. > No. Yes? Has Europe vaccinated all at-risk people and elderly? If not, then staunchly yes they are in fact sacrificing their own. There aren't enough vaccines to go around. > While the US is busy putting vaccines in stockpile for 16 years olds, other nations' 90 years olds will die. One could argue that they've lived a good life ya know? In the medical community the elderly are sacrificed to save the young all else being equal. But while the U.S. might be sacrificing 90 year olds in, idk, Thailand, the E.U. is sacrificing 90 year olds in the E.U.. > I imagine you are looking at this from the POV of someone who benefits from this How could I not be and why would that matter? Your challenge is in the words used in the discussion. A rich person can be right about something even if they're rich. Personally I have no illusions here. The U.S. is the giant in the room. There was no doubt in my mind that Americans were going to be vaccinated and vaccinated above all others in the world. It's exactly how a nation state operates. I wouldn't expect a nation state to sacrifice its own citizens for others in a scenario like this, though that hasn't always been the case. Why is China vaccinating 74 million of its own people? Why aren't they sending those vaccines to North Korea or Venezuela? So nationalistic!
  - spoonjim 6y ago
    Should the US government choose a policy that allows one American to die or a policy that allows 1 billion non-Americans to die? To many, the answer is obvious.
    - 6y ago
krzyk 6y ago
> 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. Good example of "screw the world" that is quite common there. US is hoarding vaccines it doesn't need right now and the rest of the world (except UK, which has so much common with US that it is almost funny) is vaccinating everyone right away with their vaccines. I really hope it will be remembered after it is all over.
- _benedict 6y ago
  The UK is not hoarding, every vaccine is being used. The EU so far is doing very little to vaccinate the world, for all its current moralising focus on shipping of a handful of doses to richer countries.

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
Great. Now you're trying to lump me in with "rich people" and "racists"? Do better. > "Countries should secure vaccines for all their citizens before exporting any vaccine" ... why shouldn't they? Does a country have a duty to protect its people from harm? If my country isn't willing to put my life before everyone else in the world what's the point? And why are you drawing a line at vaccines? Why isn't Germany or France paying for minimum wage across the world? Why isn't the German army full time engaged in saving people in war-torn countries? Why isn't the E.U. giving free medicine to all people across the world? I'm all for abolishing nation states. I get it. But let's not sit here and act like the U.S. is some big bad nationalistic monster here when you're just picking an arbitrary (and potentially convenient) line to draw. > No. Yes? Has Europe vaccinated all at-risk people and elderly? If not, then staunchly yes they are in fact sacrificing their own. There aren't enough vaccines to go around. > While the US is busy putting vaccines in stockpile for 16 years olds, other nations' 90 years olds will die. One could argue that they've lived a good life ya know? In the medical community the elderly are sacrificed to save the young all else being equal. But while the U.S. might be sacrificing 90 year olds in, idk, Thailand, the E.U. is sacrificing 90 year olds in the E.U.. > I imagine you are looking at this from the POV of someone who benefits from this How could I not be and why would that matter? Your challenge is in the words used in the discussion. A rich person can be right about something even if they're rich. Personally I have no illusions here. The U.S. is the giant in the room. There was no doubt in my mind that Americans were going to be vaccinated and vaccinated above all others in the world. It's exactly how a nation state operates. I wouldn't expect a nation state to sacrifice its own citizens for others in a scenario like this, though that hasn't always been the case. Why is China vaccinating 74 million of its own people? Why aren't they sending those vaccines to North Korea or Venezuela? So nationalistic!
- spoonjim 6y ago
  Should the US government choose a policy that allows one American to die or a policy that allows 1 billion non-Americans to die? To many, the answer is obvious.
  - 6y ago

krzyk 6y ago

> 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. Good example of "screw the world" that is quite common there. US is hoarding vaccines it doesn't need right now and the rest of the world (except UK, which has so much common with US that it is almost funny) is vaccinating everyone right away with their vaccines. I really hope it will be remembered after it is all over.

_benedict 6y ago
The UK is not hoarding, every vaccine is being used. The EU so far is doing very little to vaccinate the world, for all its current moralising focus on shipping of a handful of doses to richer countries.