We need people's WHO to solve vaccine inequity, and we need it now.
TL;DR: The COVAX was established to pool demands and funds among countries to collectively negotiate an affordable price for the vaccine with vaccine manufacturers in order to ensure equitable distribution of vaccines regardless of countries' income level.
Abstract: ### Summary box
As of 9 April 2021, of more than 700 million COVID-19 vaccine doses administered globally, only 0.2% have gone to low-income countries, with over 87% gone to high income countries (HICs) or upper middle-income countries.1 COVAX was established to pool demands and funds among countries to collectively negotiate an affordable price for the vaccine with vaccine manufacturers.2 The aspiration was to ensure equitable distribution of vaccines regardless of countries’ income level. This aspiration failed. COVAX’s collective purchasing power was outcompeted by governments who had greater means to pay and purchased directly from vaccine manufacturers outside COVAX. Consequently, global COVID-19 vaccine supply was left to competition among countries based on their ability to pay rather than public health needs in what can be termed ‘survival of the wealthiest’.
In recognition of the vaccine inequity, civil society actors, governments of wealthy nations (eg, G7, G20) and multilateral agencies have called for redistributing excess doses from HICs to low-income middle-income countries (LMICs), …
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This paper examined public preferences in six European countries regarding the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines between the Global South and Global North and found that female, younger, and more educated respondents were more favorable to an equitable vaccine distribution.
Abstract: Background: The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations remains highly unequal. We examine public preferences in six European countries regarding the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines between the Global South and Global North. Methods: We conducted online discrete choice experiments with adult participants in France (n=766), Germany (n=1964), Italy (n=767), Poland (n=670), Spain (n=925), and Sweden (n=938). Respondents were asked to decide which one of two candidates should receive the vaccine first. The candidates varied on four attributes: age, mortality risk, employment, and living in a low- or high-income country. We analysed the relevance of each attribute in allocation decisions using conditional logit regressions. Results: In all six countries, respondents prioritised candidates with a high mortality and infection risk, irrespective of whether the candidate lived in the respondent’s own country. All else equal, respondents in Italy, France, Spain, and Sweden gave priority to a candidate from a low-income country, whereas German respondents were significantly more likely to choose the candidate from their own country. Female, younger, and more educated respondents were more favourable to an equitable vaccine distribution. Conclusions: Given these preferences for global solidarity, European governments should promote vaccine transfers to poorer world regions. Funding: Funding was provided by the European Union’s Horizon H2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement 101016233 (PERISCOPE).
3 citations
TL;DR: Through this scoping review, it is found that the seven themes of GHG structure change, human rights and inequities,solidarity, collaboration and partnership, and private investment and public-private partnerships in GHG are interconnected.
3 citations
TL;DR: Public preferences in six European countries regarding the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines between the Global South and Global North are examined, showing female, younger, and more educated respondents were more favourable of an equitable vaccine distribution.
Abstract: Background: The global distribution of COVID-19 vaccinations remains highly unequal. We examine public preferences in six European countries regarding the allocation of COVID-19 vaccines between the Global South and Global North. Methods: We conducted online discrete choice experiments with adult participants in France (n=766), Germany (n=1964), Italy (n=767), Poland (n=670), Spain (n=925), and Sweden (n=938). Respondents were asked to decide which one of two candidates, who varied along four attributes: age, mortality risk, employment, and living in a low- or high-income country, should receive the vaccine first. We analysed the relevance of each attribute in allocation decisions using a conditional logit regression. Results: Across countries, respondents selected candidates with a high mortality and infection risk, irrespective of whether the candidate lived in their own country. All else equal, respondents in Italy, France, Spain, and Sweden gave priority to a candidate from a low-income country, whereas German respondents were significantly more likely to choose the candidate from their own country. Female, younger, and more educated respondents were more favourable of an equitable vaccine distribution. Conclusions: Given these preferences for global solidarity, European governments should promote vaccine transfers to poorer world regions.
3 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: To decolonise global health is to remove all forms of supremacy within all spaces of global health practice, within countries, between countries, and at the global level.
152 citations
TL;DR: The Global Health Security Index (GHSI) as mentioned in this paper was the first global health security index to assess a country's capability to prevent and mitigate epidemics and pandemics.
Abstract: ### Summary box
One formidable barrier to equity in the global health field is its implicit function of legitimising and reproducing the existing power structure in addition to its explicit goal of improving population health and health equity.
In October 2019, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and the Economist Intelligence Unit published the Global Health Security Index.1 An international advisory panel of ‘21 experts from 13 countries ranked 195 countries based on a comprehensive framework of 140 questions, organized across 6 categories, 34 indicators, and 85 subindicators to assess a country’s capability to prevent and mitigate epidemics and pandemics’.1 The USA, the UK and the Netherlands were ranked top 3 countries on the overall score, with the USA ranked first in four out of …
32 citations
TL;DR: Examining the ideological underpinnings of the currently dominant norms in global health is required to solve persistent health inequity challenges and meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Abstract: Background: The current approach to global health has significantly contributed to improving it, as evidenced by the progress made toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, the healt...
19 citations
01 Jan 1986
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors described the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (Charter of economic rights and duties of states) as an instrument of change in favor of less developed countries.
Abstract: This chapter describes Charter of Economic Rights and duties of states The Charter consists of a preamble and 34 articles organized into four chapters The 13 paragraphs in the preamble contain uncontroversial statements with the exception of the fourth and seventh paragraphs, which in the Second Committee attracted abstentions and negative votes respectively The fourth paragraph declares “that it is a fundamental purpose of the present Charter to promote the establishment of the new international economic order based on equity, sovereign equality, interdependence, common interest, and cooperation among all States, irrespective of their economic and social systems” The seventh paragraph adds the promotion of “collective economic security for development, in particular of the developing countries” to the list of the Charter's objectives Other paragraphs, by aiming at the “acceleration of the economic growth of developing countries with a view to bridging the economic gap between developing and developed countries” and the “strengthening of the economic independence of developing countries,” reflect the main focus of the Charter as an instrument of change in favor of less developed countries
18 citations