4 ms·

Because giving people useful things generally does them good rather than harm, and doing people good isn't unethical just because you could have done them more

by gjm11 4y ago

Because giving people useful things generally does them good rather than harm, and doing people good isn't unethical just because you could have done them more good at greater cost? Because if you are poor then buying more of something cheaper, rather than less of something more expensive, isn't unethical? Poorer countries tend to have worse everything. Smaller houses. Less robust cars. Fewer doctors. Bumpier roads. Worse internet access. Worse schools. That's what being poorer means. It seems to me that whatever ethical problems there are here aren't in the fact that poorer countries are using a cheaper and probably less effective COVID-19 vaccine, but in the fact that some countries are much poorer than others in the first place.

chiefalchemist 4y ago
The oath is "Do no harm." Unloading a "procedure" that's unacceptable in The First World on other markets is unethical. We're not talking about cars, etc. There's no shortage of alternatives. There's no lack of manufacturing capavity. Etc. All there is is shoddy rationalization that the poor get what they deserve. Pray you're never on the wrong side of such ethics.
- gjm11 4y ago
  First of all, a disclaimer: I am not a COVID-19 expert and my understanding might be out of date. Accordingly, I am not certain that the AZ vaccine still provides sufficient protection against current variants of SARS-CoV-2 for that benefit to outweigh the very small risk of side effects. I am pretty sure it does, though. If I am wrong about that, then I agree that giving people the AZ vaccine is no longer to their benefit, and none of what follows is applicable any longer (though it would have been in the recent past when the AZ vaccine definitely was net helpful even if slightly less so than the mRNA vaccines). Giving someone who would otherwise go unvaccinated a dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine is not doing them harm: it makes them less likely to get a severe case of COVID-19. Vaccination with the AZ vaccine is only "unacceptable in The First World" in the sense that a better alternative is available if you don't mind paying the higher prices. Most people's (and communities', and religions', and ...) ethical systems do not hold that it is unethical to do something that benefits someone unless what you are doing is the most beneficial thing you could possibly do, regardless of the cost to you. I think it is a good thing that they don't, because that would mean e.g. that if you have the capacity to manufacture an effective COVID-19 vaccine in large quantities then you are obliged to provide it to everyone in the world for free, and if that requirement were in place then it would be a disincentive for any company that prefers not going out of business to develop that capacity, and that would be bad for everyone. Without looking at the actual relevant numbers (how much it costs Pfizer or Moderna to make a given number of doses, how much it cost them to develop the vaccines, the costs of distribution, etc.) I don't have a definite opinion on whether (e.g.) wealthy Western governments have been much less generous than they should have been; I strongly suspect that they have. But you are not saying "they should have been more generous", they are saying "no one should be using the AZ vaccine for anything", and if the AZ vaccine is cheaper than alternatives then I think that's just plain wrong. But maybe I am misunderstanding what you're claiming. What, specifically, do you think should have been done instead of what has actually been done? If it's more expensive than what was actually done, who should have paid? And, if the answer is anything less than "provide everyone in the world, for free, with the best available COVID-19 vaccine, regardless of cost", why are you confident that your proposal is better than one that uses the lower price of the AZ vaccine to provide more doses of that in preference to fewer doses of more expensive ones? It is not my opinion that "the poor get what they deserve". I see no reason to think that any such belief is responsible for the fact that some poorer countries are using the AZ vaccine. If you disagree, then I would like to see some evidence rather than mere indignation.

by gjm11 4y ago

chiefalchemist 4y ago

The oath is "Do no harm." Unloading a "procedure" that's unacceptable in The First World on other markets is unethical. We're not talking about cars, etc. There's no shortage of alternatives. There's no lack of manufacturing capavity. Etc. All there is is shoddy rationalization that the poor get what they deserve. Pray you're never on the wrong side of such ethics.

gjm11 4y ago
First of all, a disclaimer: I am not a COVID-19 expert and my understanding might be out of date. Accordingly, I am not certain that the AZ vaccine still provides sufficient protection against current variants of SARS-CoV-2 for that benefit to outweigh the very small risk of side effects. I am pretty sure it does, though. If I am wrong about that, then I agree that giving people the AZ vaccine is no longer to their benefit, and none of what follows is applicable any longer (though it would have been in the recent past when the AZ vaccine definitely was net helpful even if slightly less so than the mRNA vaccines). Giving someone who would otherwise go unvaccinated a dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine is not doing them harm: it makes them less likely to get a severe case of COVID-19. Vaccination with the AZ vaccine is only "unacceptable in The First World" in the sense that a better alternative is available if you don't mind paying the higher prices. Most people's (and communities', and religions', and ...) ethical systems do not hold that it is unethical to do something that benefits someone unless what you are doing is the most beneficial thing you could possibly do, regardless of the cost to you. I think it is a good thing that they don't, because that would mean e.g. that if you have the capacity to manufacture an effective COVID-19 vaccine in large quantities then you are obliged to provide it to everyone in the world for free, and if that requirement were in place then it would be a disincentive for any company that prefers not going out of business to develop that capacity, and that would be bad for everyone. Without looking at the actual relevant numbers (how much it costs Pfizer or Moderna to make a given number of doses, how much it cost them to develop the vaccines, the costs of distribution, etc.) I don't have a definite opinion on whether (e.g.) wealthy Western governments have been much less generous than they should have been; I strongly suspect that they have. But you are not saying "they should have been more generous", they are saying "no one should be using the AZ vaccine for anything", and if the AZ vaccine is cheaper than alternatives then I think that's just plain wrong. But maybe I am misunderstanding what you're claiming. What, specifically, do you think should have been done instead of what has actually been done? If it's more expensive than what was actually done, who should have paid? And, if the answer is anything less than "provide everyone in the world, for free, with the best available COVID-19 vaccine, regardless of cost", why are you confident that your proposal is better than one that uses the lower price of the AZ vaccine to provide more doses of that in preference to fewer doses of more expensive ones? It is not my opinion that "the poor get what they deserve". I see no reason to think that any such belief is responsible for the fact that some poorer countries are using the AZ vaccine. If you disagree, then I would like to see some evidence rather than mere indignation.