Is it just to get a booster?

[BlsdMama]

Open discussion:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/22/who-says-covid-vaccine-booster-programs-will-prolong-pandemic.html

 

I’d add: *With the consideration that the boosters likely is not effective against the current prevalent virus. 

[Farrar]

I think the WHO is obviously right. But as a person who cannot do much about it other than urge the government to send more vaccine abroad (and, gee, if I had, you know, actual representation I might do that), I absolutely see no issue with individuals here getting the booster. The booster has been shown to be pretty effective against this new strain, even if it's nowhere near as effective as the original vaccine against earlier strains.

[Faith-manor]

And the issue that isn't being discussed is many of these nations do not have the medical infrastructure for distribution. With hospital overwhelm and healthcare systems breaking, we don't have anyone to send to help. We could donate 7 billion doses and not be able to get them in arms. It is a huge problem, a tragic, massive problem that again highlights the political priorities of industrialized nations for decades now, and it is killing people everywhere. But it isn't popular to discuss this for the most part.

[Corraleno]

I think if Novavax can really deliver the 2 billion doses they say they will produce next year, that will certainly help with supply issues. And unlike mRNA vaccines, Novavax can be stored and transported at normal refrigeration temperatures. They have promised more than 1 billion doses to COVAX in 2022.

[Amira]

19 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

And the issue that isn't being discussed is many of these nations do not have the medical infrastructure for distribution. With hospital overwhelm and healthcare systems breaking, we don't have anyone to send to help. We could donate 7 billion doses and not be able to get them in arms. It is a huge problem, a tragic, massive problem that again highlights the political priorities of industrialized nations for decades now, and it is killing people everywhere. But it isn't popular to discuss this for the most part.

Yes, this is an major issue, but even in low-income countries where the infrastructure actually is in place, vaccination has been incredibly slow.  If the country I currently live in had vaccine delivery like wealthy countries do, we would have a very high vaccination rate because the infrastructure is here to distribute it. But we’re at about 20% instead. Vaccine infrastructure is not an issue in many countries where delivery is low.  And some of the stories you hear about this are worst-case scenarios where wealthy countries donate vaccine that’s too near expiration to be used effectively.  If they can’t use it, why should they expect that anyone else could?

(Now responding generally, not just to you, Faith-manor.)

There are three things that people in wealthy countries should be doing.  1. Get your shots when they are available. 2. Don’t contribute to the spread of misinformation because it truly does affect people all over the world. 3. Advocate for and support your government’s efforts now and in the future to improve healthcare all over the world because viruses don’t care about borders or travel bans. 

The way this entire pandemic has gone has been so predictable.  Amazing feats of science that are helping the most privileged in the world, while less privileged people are waiting for months and probably years for those benefits to trickle down. It is unfortunate that we have never never truly turned our attention to medical infrastructure (and some even went as far as demonizing people like Bill Gates early in the pandemic despite his decades-long effort to improve medical infrastructure).  We could do some amazing things if we decided to use our money that way.

If you’re a US citizen, support USAID in particular in addition to NGOs. USAID is where a lot of US government effort happens to support healthcare worldwide.  It has had a rough time the last few years and was already reeling before the pandemic hit. But that discussion probably should happen on the politics board.

[Jean in Newcastle]

My getting sick doesn't help anyone in my house, country or the rest of the world.  I am not going to turn down a booster that is here now and will go unused if not used in a timely manner. 

[Tanaqui]

Would it be better if wealthy nations such as the USA put more money into sending vaccines abroad? Yes, absolutely - better for them AND better for us. It'd be a win-win.

But the decision has been made. My choosing not to get a booster today isn't going to help some poor person overseas get a first shot. That's like cleaning my plate because of the starving kids wherever. I can't meaningfully help them that way.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I feel like this discussion on a personal level (rather than a governmental level) is a ploy (conscious or not) to detract from our responsibility to take care of our health in our own community.  This doesn't mean that I don't care about other countries especially poor ones. 

[Amira]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

I feel like this discussion on a personal level (rather than a governmental level) is a ploy (conscious or not) to detract from our responsibility to take care of our health in our own community.  This doesn't mean that I don't care about other countries especially poor ones. 

I agree.  The WHO is pointing out systemic problems that will affect global health now and in the future, which is their job, but individuals (not here, necessarily, but elsewhere) who latch onto this as an excuse to not promote vaccines are often the same people who oppose wealthy countries spending on global health. The WHO wants people everywhere to get vaccinated in a more equitable fashion, just like it wants people to have access to other types of equitable health care (whether its methods for achieving those goals are adequate or appropriate isn’t the point here), but their concerns about boosters really aren’t about individuals. It’s a systemic problem.

[Idalou]

16 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

And the issue that isn't being discussed is many of these nations do not have the medical infrastructure for distribution. With hospital overwhelm and healthcare systems breaking, we don't have anyone to send to help. We could donate 7 billion doses and not be able to get them in arms. It is a huge problem, a tragic, massive problem that again highlights the political priorities of industrialized nations for decades now, and it is killing people everywhere. But it isn't popular to discuss this for the most part.

 There is a shortage of the specialized syringes needed for the Pfizer vaccine in developing countries. When the US sent millions, they chose to send them without syringes in order to save them for Americans. I do not know how much was wasted. It is very charitable, but was not well planned.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/syringe-shortage-could-derail-bidens-push-to-vaccinate-the-world

Edited December 23, 2021 by Idalou

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Idalou said:

 There is a shortage of the specialized syringes needed for the Pfizer vaccine in developing countries. When the US sent millions, they chose to send them without syringes in order to save them for Americans. I do not know how much was wasted. It is very charitable, but was not well planned.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/syringe-shortage-could-derail-bidens-push-to-vaccinate-the-world

The claim in that article that Pfizer vaccines "have to be injected with a specialized syringe" is false. It can be administered with a standard syringe, and in fact was shipped that way when the vaccine was first released in the US. According to this article in Science, many Pfizer & Moderna doses were still being distributed in the US with standard 3 ml syringes as late as March.

The reason the US switched to smaller needles is that manufacturers overfill vials to allow for wastage, and using a more accurate 1 ml syringe allowed HCWs to get an extra dose or two out of each vial. So the US ordered extra small syringes and allowed vaccine manufacturers to start counting the "overfill" as extra "doses delivered" in their contract. That actually helped make additional vials available for donation, since we were getting more doses per vial. 

But there is no reason that other countries can't use regular syringes to administer the vaccines, it just means they can't get as many doses out of a vial. The Vanity Fair article makes it seem like there are cases of vaccine being thrown out because there are no needles to inject them, and that the administration was incredibly stupid for not shipping the "required" syringes with the vaccine, when in reality it just means that one or two potential doses per vial are "wasted" if they use regular syringes.