Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com