Hacker News Reader

The EU has already exported 3.9 million doses to Canada. 3.1 million to Mexico and 1 million to the US (source: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_...)

Meanwhile the US is now exporting (as a loan!) 2.5 million doses to Mexico and 1.5 million to Canada (source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56451810) acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US. A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage.

I understand - but disagree with - you stance that a country should put its own citizens first. In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten.

I am happy that the EU allows vaccine exports but I expect this pandemic to be the last one they do. Voters in US and UK are happy and praising their government. Voters in EU are not so happy. They are going to elect a government which would put EU citizens first. Non-US/UK/EU citizens would of course be in favour of a robust export and sharing program, but they don't get a say, so vaccine nationalism will win.

> acting like it‘s a grand humanitarian gesture when the vaccine isn‘t even approved for use in the US.

"Under the agreement, the countries must return any excess doses to the US."

I see 0 problem with this.

> A further 3 million doses are being kept in storage.

Yep no problem with this either...

> In the end, it‘s India, China, Russia and the EU who give the vast majority of countries any chance of vaccinating their most at-risk citizens. I suspect this won‘t be forgotten.

I think you're severely underestimating how quickly the U.S. is vaccinating and how quickly these shipments will hit the rest of the world. There are ~8 billion people on Earth, and the U.S. and U.K. are leading the way [1] in vaccinating their populations. Once the U.S. is fully vaccinated, tens of millions of doses will flow to the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S. Hell, the U.S. has administered almost more doses than Russia, India, and China combined but those are the countries that will save the world? C'mon.

I personally don't understand the "your country shouldn't put its own citizens first" mentality. It's honestly just incompatible with my own world view as we currently see the world. I mean, we need minimum wage increases here in the U.S. - why isn't the E.U. paying? [2]

This notion is just not very reflective of how the world works, or how humans work for that matter. I guess if the E.U. wants to export all its vaccines so E.U. citizens (why do they even have citizenship? why is it even an organization? Why are there even member states?) get them last - that's their prerogative and I'm sure the E.U. voters will support or reject that. In the U.S. and U.K. I think we take the view that you have to put your mask on first before you help someone put theirs on.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/world/covid-vaccina... [2] This notion is easy to dismiss. If you truly believed this you'd feed starving kids in other places instead of your own or any of your friends or relatives. Nobody operates this way so why pretend that nations must?

> Hell, the U.S. has administered almost more doses than Russia, India, and China combined but those are the countries that will save the world? C'mon.

Yes. The US administered those vaccines to people in the US, so it does not save the world. On the other hand, India, one of the countries you ridicule, exported 58 million vaccines, almost twice as many as what they administered locally.[1] The EU has exported 34 million.[2] In comparison, the US is exporting 4 million.[3]

> Once the U.S. is fully vaccinated, tens of millions of doses will flow to the rest of the world on behalf of the U.S.

If we're talking future flows, Indonesia alone is set to receive 140 million doses from China.[4] India is ramping up production from 60-70 million monthly doses to 100 million monthly doses from April.[5] "Tens of millions" of doses from the US is a drop in the ocean compared to that.

1. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-india-...

2. https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/11/covid-vaccine-brussels-s...

3. https://m.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-us-to-send-first-vacc...

4. https://go.kompas.com/read/2021/02/17/172557174/indonesia-to...

5. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/03/18/9780657...

Let's be clear here - I haven't ridiculed any country. I'm defending the actions of the U.S. and U.K.

> "Tens of millions" of doses from the US is a drop in the ocean compared to that.

> so it does not save the world

Ok fine. We can let India and China save the world. I don't really care anymore. We'll keep all of our doses since it's just a drop in the ocean and doesn't matter. No wonder so many in America are becoming isolationist and protectionist. I'm so over all day every day just hearing about how awful America is.

"America sucks it can't vaccinate its own people!"

"America sucks it's not donating vaccines to other people in the world!"

Anyway - why exactly was there ever this big competition to see who could export the most doses?

> "Many Indians, however, now want the government to make vaccines available to more of its own people instead of only the elderly and those above 45 suffering from health conditions.

> “The priority of the Modi government is not the state but foreign nations,” Congress said on Twitter, using the tag #IndiaNeedsMoreVaccines and accusing the premier of focusing on “PR over people”." [1]

> India, the world's biggest vaccine maker, has gifted or sold here 59 million locally produced doses compared with 33 million doses given to its own people since its inoculation campaign began in mid-January.

Hmm. I wonder how much those definitely not corrupt Pharma companies made by selling vaccines to other countries instead of giving them to equally at-risk Indians?

Why do people always try and make these situations so black and white?

> The US administered those vaccines to people in the US, so it does not save the world.

The US is part of the world, and vaccinating an American does as much to save the world as vaccinating a non-American. For a country that isn't yet fully vaccinated and isn't vaccinating at the limit of its own logistical capability, the most effective contribution it can make to saving the world is to ramp up internal vaccinations.

> "Tens of millions" of vaccines is a drop in the ocean compared to that.

The US has contracted for production of nearly vaccines for about 200 million more people than there are people in the US, all but 100 million of which are due by July 31.

I don't understand the negative reaction here. A human is a human. The US is still contributing to global vaccinations count heavily and once majority of Americans are inoculated, the world will soon be flush with those doses too. Then there's the fact that Moderna, Pfizer, and J&J were all involved in making them in the first place...

I think the negative reaction comes from thinking that, vaccinating an 80 year old Indonesian is the same as vaccinating a 22 year old American. One has a much higher chance of having a severe, deadly, case COVID than the other.

I think you underestimate a populations capacity for compassion. This is why (some) European countries took on millions of refugees in the last ten years. It‘s also why Romania donated some of their vaccines to Moldova - donated mind you, not loaned.

There‘s also the aspect of soft power. China and Russia are playing this particularly well right now, supplying other nations faster than their own population. This will buy them influence for decades to come.

> This is why (some) European countries took on millions of refugees in the last ten years.

I don't really view this as much in the way of compassion. It's more like that the E.U. is getting old and not having babies and they need more people to pay taxes. It's also counter-productive from a global perspective. You have to fix the reasons these people migrate in the first place.

> China and Russia are playing this particularly well right now, supplying other nations faster than their own population.

Are they? Do you have a link? I saw from the New York Times tracker that China has vaccinated 74 million of their own citizens. Are you saying they've sent more vaccines to the rest of the world than the 74 million they've used on their own? If so color me impressed.

Your point about the vaccine being supplied to other countries is certainly well taken - but the idea that the U.S. and U.K. won't be supplying vaccines (Vaccine Diplomacy) to buy influence as well or in counter moves to Russian and Chinese influence would be naive.

I think a lot of people are suffering from Trump hangover. The U.S. is quickly getting things back together.

Up-to-date data is hard to come by, especially for China I couldn‘t find much concrete.

Russia (based on an article from March 7th: https://www.google.de/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Business/wire...) had vaccinated 4 million people domestically and exported 2.5 million doses to Argentina, 325k to Hungary and 200k to Mexico. There have been many other other exports reported but most without a concrete number.

For China, one data point is that the Most Chile‘s 5 million vaccinations were with Chinese vaccine. (Source: https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2230962...)

> Your point about the vaccine being supplied to other countries is certainly well taken - but the idea that the U.S. and U.K. won't be supplying vaccines (Vaccine Diplomacy) to buy influence as well or in counter moves to Russian and Chinese influence would be naive.

I‘m sure they will. But not before elate summer. And, to exaggerate, people won‘t forget if their grandma died of COVID while college kids were vaccinated in the US.

> And, to exaggerate, people won‘t forget if their grandma died of COVID while college kids were vaccinated in the US.

Likewise, Americans who pay taxes and live in America and expect America to defend them and guard their welfare and safety won't forget if their college kid dies of COVID-19 because the government shipped vaccines overseas and they couldn't get one.

If you don't like that and want to criticize the nation state system ok that's fine. Start with some other country like China, or Brazil, or Israel. People won't forget that China already vaccinated 74 million of its own people when people in (insert country) died!

> Are they? Do you have a link? I saw from the New York Times tracker that China has vaccinated 74 million of their own citizens. Are you saying they've sent more vaccines to the rest of the world than the 74 million they've used on their own? If so color me impressed.

12 millon Sinovac doses have been shipped to Chile so far.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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-c...

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.

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!

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.

Would you save your kid from dying if that meant 10 other strangers would die instead?

The real number is 7900:1, not 10:1. Also, you can flip you statement and come to a difference conclusion.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...

I would save my kid if it meant every other person on Earth dying. But government isn’t our daddy and can hopefully make more dispassionate decisions.

> 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.

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.

Countries looking out for themselves in this fashion likely behave shortsightedly. Having Covid ravage e.g. Brazil and in effect use this country as a bioreactor for mutations does put e.g. the US at grave risk.

Now Brazil has other problems than vaccine availability, but the principle of altruism being in the own interest still is valid.

This is a tragedy of the commons that is very tragic indeed. And very little seems to be done to combat the demagogy.