Really sorry to hear about the teacher.
To clarify: I’m not saying this isn’t real. What I am saying is that there is preliminary evidence that the statements above are, on average, correct.
I want to explain why I do think that at the current moment, I cannot see this as a false dichotomy to decide whether we commit to fulfilling COVAX promises or getting children in the US and EU vaccinated.
Right now, right here, in the country where the company is situated which has developed the mRNA vaccine known in the US as the “Pfizer jab”, quite a few of those eligible for vaccination with any vaccine currently available are competing with younger people, only eligible for vaccination with mRNA. Currently, that is everyone form 16 to 59.
The Oxford-developed and AstraZeneca-produced vector-based vaccine is recommend for everyone over 60, and we got a supply which is increasing. It is not recommended for everyone below 60, who can however opt in for it. The J&J vaccine has similar problems, but AZ is the poster child for communication gone wrong.
This competition is a real thing. I have friends, one with a severe neurological disorder, who could only get vaccinated because they took “leftover” AZ doses. Some of them are parents. Their children have to attend in-person classes, because the local incidence fell below 165 per 100k pop.
If we want to vaccinate our children, this competition will increase.
Bottom line: I really this isn’t all about political will to change policies. This is also, about current supply and demand. (And for once, I try hard not to get into a rant on market ideology and capitalism here.) The supply side has, and I take this as a fact which need to CHANGE ASAP, real capacity problems in know-how, facilities, and raw materials. I accept that right now, it will not change overnight. I also think this needs to change, ASAP, see above.
What the doc said about children is completely correct:
The “immensely effective” part is very much important especially for the time after the pandemic, when we have an endemic virus in our populations. Current evidence, however, seems to indicate that they are equally likely to catch the virus, and a bit less likely to spread it than immuno-naïve adults. Combined with the evidence that severe cases are rare, this can be an argument to fucking start taking protection of children seriously, which means e.g. getting bloody air filters for every classroom, etc, as I said above. It also means that we need a low incidence, and identify every potential cluster early on. We need non-pharmaceutical measures, even among fully vaccinated people, to protect children and the unvaccinated adults. Otherwise, the virus will roll over the younglings. It already does, in some places.
Please, remember that I do not say, never said and will not say that kids don’t get Covid-19. And I didn’t say it does not affect them.
I very much agree with you, doc:
It will. The trouble is if we do this in a “my kids first” way, we currently do not have the amount of vaccines needed to get COVAX on track. Just look at what they got up to now! The target for end of May 2021 for COVAX is 247 million doses. We are not going to meet this.
We desperately need to ramp up productions. And to get better treatments, for everyone, not only those who can afford it. But both doesn’t come fast enough. Decisions were made and will be made, and the WHO press release is a quite desperate call for attention, I think.
I have the feeling that, so far, from the perspective of everyone outside Europe and North America, it must look as if we are not committed to a global solution for a global problem.
In my opinion, this is an ethical dilemma right now, not a dichotomy.
How many, and who, and where, is going to suffer, how many, and who, and where, are going to die?
It feels like the trolley problem. It makes me sick. But I can understand the realities.
This is political. Highly so. And Symbolpolitik will not solve it. At all.
