Some reflections on 'vaccine nationalism'.

Many people have bemoaned 'vaccine nationalism' and have emphasised the necessity of avoiding it. But, in fact, for a long time, many nation states, including our own, have been practising it for some time. The United Kingdom has ordered many more doses than it needs. (The Modi government in India, by contrast, has been acting quite out of character in being very generous in disposing of surplus doses to other states in Asia and Africa. Would that it had not displayed nonsensical brutality toward its own poorest citizens at the start of the pandemic: however, that is par for the course with Modi).

The controversy over the competitive acquisition of doses by the United Kingdom and the EU misses the essential point about the vaccine. It is, of necessity, a scarce resource, which is complex to produce, and for which there is almost unlimited demand. Therefore, questions about its equitable distribution must therefore arise. It is not a question of who has the sharpest elbows to get its hands on the most doses first ; the issue is: which criteria should be used in determining global prioritisation of the vaccine ?

The virus does not respect borders ; but some environments are more hospitable to it than others. It is no accident that new variants have occurred in the United Kingdom. Brazil and South Africa, for these are among the states that have been least able to control the virus. Environments in which the virus is allowed to circukate freely encourage the proliferation of variants. As these environments are mostly located in the Global South, it is in everybody's enlightened self-interest that these areas should receive priority in the distribution of vaccines. (An argument can be made that the United Kingdom should fall into the same category, because of its inability to control the virus effectively and the hiuge consequent death toll. However, the Global South has the plausible excuse of widespread insanitary living conditions, and ill-resourced public health and health care systems, whereas the criminal administrative negligence on the part of the Johnson government was the consequence of a series of deliberate but avoidable decisions).

I therefore make the following suggestions. As (some) nation states (including our own) have shown that they are extremely good at over-purchasing the vaccine, they should be allowed to proceed with this. However, once the over-60s, the most vulnerable and health care workers have been vaccinated in the Global North, the remaining vaccines should be promptly handed over to the World Health Organisation, together with a very generous allocation of funds, in order to vaccinate the Global South as a matter of urgent health and moral priority. I have no doubt that, if the WHO were properly resourced, it could repeat the smallpox vaccination 'miracle' of the 1970s. There would have to be international agreement that those nation states which refused to participate in this scheme would be subject to some form of sanctions. The under-60s (including the writer of this post) in the Global North would have to wait until much later to be vaccinated.

To those who would object that this policy is utopian or impractical, or would cause unbearable pain in the Global North by delaying the resumption of 'normal' activities (e.g. pubs), I have two rejoinders. How is it in anyone's enlightened self-interest to let the virus rage in the poorest countries while the Global North gives itself the illusion of protection ? By which moral criterion can the resumption of 'normality' in the Global North have priority over the prevention of economic and social collapse in the Global South ?

I expect a welter of critical responses to this blogpost, which I welcome wholeheartedly.