WHO urges Britain to pause Covid jabs after treating most vulnerable. “We’re asking all countries in those circumstances to do that.”

[tadaima]

Lmao. The UK government cares little for the wellbeing of its own population. Do you really expect them to give a damn about people outside of the islands?

Also, the UK just brexited. The majority of the British population are unlikely to give a damn about anybody other than themselves for a while too.

Unlikely for the UK rollout to be called off.

 

[Deleted member 4461]

Other people have already said it, but pretty much any country leader in this position would say no. And anyone who wouldn't say no would be preparing for their resignation speech.

Also, mixing vaccinated + non-vaccinated people for long periods of time seems like something you'd want a second opinion on.

Finally, WHO has a vested interest in saying this because much like how the UK government is responsible for the UK people, the WHO represents many more companies.

Really, the better play for WHO (which would also not work) is to push for waiving patents on the vaccines. So other countries could attempt to develop their own. That's more of a moral plea, IMO.

 

[Regulus Tera]

Make. The. Vaccines. Open. Source.

Anything less than that should be considered a crime against humanity.

 

[Senator Rains]

On paper this sounds like a moral and selfless thing to do, but it's super unrealistic and dangerous at the same time. WHO is putting way too much weight behind the word "vulnerable". Why should the UK or any sensible government pay money for vaccines, start vaccination, then stop to give the vaccines to another country? There's still unvaccinated people in the UK, and they're still in danger of dying from the virus.

This kind of plan would've made sense if it was discussed and agreed upon by a majority of countries before any vaccine doses were sold. The real solution would be to pressure pfizer and other manufacturers to give up the license (ala aspirin).

Man, WHO has been a trainwreck during this pandemic and they're really shown how fragile they are.

 

[Senator Toadstool]

I would defer to scientists but every study we have is using the two jabs, I wouldn't gamble on that. Infact it could make it worse with new mutations of the virus spreading around on the island

 

[Lishi]

I would defer to scientists but every study we have is using the two jabs, I wouldn't gamble on that. Infact it could make it worse with new mutations of the virus spreading around on the island

Click to shrink...

It's not saying that.
It's saying once the vulnerable are vaccined up to standard instead of vaccinating the non priority give to the high priority around the world.

It would make sense to save most lives but definitely not politically.

 

[Senator Rains]

Nearly 2 thousand deaths a day is a minor inconvenience, TIL

Click to shrink...

So many people are coming in with the idea that healthy people just wanna go back to dance and drink selfishly, and therefore can give that up until old people in Spain are vaccinated or something.

Healthy people can still get sick, develop chronic problem, carry the virus and transmit it, mutate the virus, get killed by the virus, etc..

The biggest moral viewpoint "healthy people" are looking through is "I need to make sure the safety and wellbeing of me and my close circle is ensured before I start worrying about helping others", not "I wanna go back to bars"

 

[Chirotera]

Problem is, it's a global issue. If the world has no more covid you don't have covid. It's amazing how selfish we've all been during this pandemic. While complaining about it's longevity. All the world had to do was think about others for a few weeks.

Click to shrink...

Yep, pretty much. It IS a global issue, and not sending out vaccines to lower income countries will come back and bite us all in the ass. Even if you give no shits about their income (I do, just saying...), the longer the virus is left unchecked in a given population, the more opportunity it has to mutate. We already have major concerns of the Brazilian variant. If we don't start a global plan for rolling out vaccinations, we're just going to keep stacking mutations on top of one another, until there's nothing that can be done. Life will never go back to normal.

I'm also no expert on this, but isn't this why the flu is a concern every year? The only difference being that the flu has much less risk associated with it, but it's also why we need to get a new vaccine against it every year.

 

[weekev]

Whilst I understand WHOs point, the UK has the highest per capita death rate from COVID so why the he'll would we give vaccines to less badly hit countries.

 

[Neo C.]

You really can't pause a vaccination program, all the efforts till now are at risk of not fully paid off.

 

[Unrivaled]

Not a chance, why would they even suggest this?

 

[Jokerman]

Why aren't Israel being called on to 'vaccinate the world'?

 

[Prophet Steve]

Whilst I understand WHOs point, the UK has the highest per capita death rate from COVID so why the he'll would we give vaccines to less badly hit countries.

Click to shrink...

When vulnerable people are vaccinated I'd hope you would not have among the highest per capita death rates. If that is not the case, well, there is a bigger issue to worry about.

Not a chance, why would they even suggest this?

Click to shrink...

The WHO has lately been focusing on the unfair vaccine distribution. They have made many statements regarding this and they need to push into that direction.

Even if the chance of it happening is extremely slim, it bring more attention to the issue. And forces people to respond to why they think vulnerable people should not be vaccinated first.

You really can't pause a vaccination program, all the efforts till now are at risk of not fully paid off.

Click to shrink...

Why do you think so? That is the case when it is spreading in other countries too.

 

[Redcrayon]

Why aren't Israel being called on to 'vaccinate the world'?

Click to shrink...

To be fair, this was an interview with the BBC where the WHO appealed to UK people, which was then picked up by the rest of the UK press, so it's unsurprising the article headlines in the press are based on at the bit most relevant to a UK audience. The article does state that in the interview the WHO spokeswoman said they were appealing to all countries once they reach the same point though:

When asked to clarify whether the UK should help efforts elsewhere once it had vaccinated its top nine priority groups, Harris told BBC Breakfast: "We're asking all countries in those circumstances to do that. Hang on, wait for those other groups.

Click to shrink...

 

[Patrick Bateman]

I doubt this will happen. The most intelligent imo would be to give other countries access to producing the vaccine themselves. If possible.

 

[Jokerman]

To be fair, this was an interview with the BBC where the WHO appealed to UK people, which was then picked up by the rest of the UK press, so it's unsurprising the article headlines in the press are based on at the bit most relevant to a UK audience. The article does state that in the interview the WHO spokeswoman said they were appealing to all countries once they reach the same point though:

Click to shrink...

Israel and the UAE are both ahead of the UK when it comes to vaccinating their population. Seems more like another chance to dunk on the UK to me. That or those other countries are treated more sensitively when it comes to criticism.

The UK has already committed to supporting global vaccination programs, yet that always seems to be ignored by the WHO.

 

[nekkid]

Israel and the UAE are both ahead of the UK when it comes to vaccinating their population. Seems more like another chance to dunk on the UK to me. That or those other countries are treated more sensitively when it comes to criticism.

Click to shrink...

Israel will immediately assume they're talking about Palestine.

 

[Redcrayon]

Israel and the UAE are both ahead of the UK when it comes to vaccinating their population. Seems more like another chance to dunk on the UK to me. That or those other countries are treated more sensitively when it comes to criticism.

The UK has already committed to supporting global vaccination programs, yet that always seems to be ignored by the WHO.

Click to shrink...

The WHO didn't appeal to specifically the U.K. out of the blue here. The BBC invited them on to comment on their previous statements that didn't target anyone specifically. They took the opportunity to appeal to the UK , while clarifying again that they were talking broadly to all nations. The line about the UAE and Israel also having a high vaccination rate seems like it was added after by the Guardian as further context, but being invited onto the BBC is hardly the WHO dunking on the U.K. out of the blue. I suspect they would have made the same appeal to any nation after being asked onto a popular news channel, and with a member of Sage making a similar argument in the same article, it seems like much of this is the Guardian adding further context after the BBC, almost by definition, invited the WHO to address the U.K. specifically.

Sir Jeremy Farrar, a member of the government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), has also warned that vaccinating "a lot of people in a few countries, leaving the virus unchecked in large parts of the world, will lead to more variants emerging".

He has argued that countries with existing vaccine supply deals could donate a percentage of doses to the WHO's Covax global vaccine-sharing fund "without taking away from the national effort to protect the most vulnerable in society and healthcare workers".

Click to shrink...

 

[Yossarian]

Boris Johnson vs morally right thing to do? I think we're done here

Click to shrink...

That's funny, buuuut...

...while I'm not going to be found defending Bojo Clown-Fuck anytime soon, this isn't a simple or easy moral choice to have to make.

 

[Herb Alpert]

Humanity once again shows how great it can be

 

[Aprikurt]

The WHO didn't appeal to specifically the U.K. out of the blue here. The BBC invited them on to comment on their previous statements that didn't target anyone specifically. They took the opportunity to appeal to the UK , while clarifying again that they were talking broadly to all nations. The line about the UAE and Israel also having a high vaccination rate seems like it was added after by the Guardian as further context, but being invited onto the BBC is hardly the WHO dunking on the U.K. out of the blue. I suspect they would have made the same appeal to any nation after being asked onto a popular news channel, and with a member of Sage making a similar argument in the same article, it seems like much of this is the Guardian adding further context after the BBC, almost by definition, invited the WHO to address the U.K. specifically.

Click to shrink...

I mean the WORLD Health Organisation are hardly going to say "Yeah, keep all your vaccinations to yourself"

 

[LTWheels]

A better thing would be for the Who to ask the UK help with their skills they have learnt from their vaccination program in setting up vaccine production in developing parts of the world and to help consult those governments on vacinne roll out.

 

[Redcrayon]

I mean the WORLD Health Organisation are hardly going to say "Yeah, keep all your vaccinations to yourself"

Click to shrink...

Exactly. They made an overarching initial statement based on entirely their remit of 'wealthy nations should make sure health disparity isn't a gross moral failure'. Which is completely understandable and why the Covax scheme to address it and negotiate vaccines for less-wealthy countries as a block, which the UK is putting a ton of cash into, is a thing. Then the BBC invites them on to clarify, and they pretty much go 'we're talking to everyone, but while we are specifically being broadcast to British viewers, please wait'. It's then gone through the U.K. media wringer where it's now being framed as targeting us specifically, when that wasn't their intention. The only reason there's any mention of the U.K. specifically at all by the WHO is because the BBC interviewed them on their initial statement, and then UK outlets with column inches to fill added a ton of extra context around the U.K. situation that all adds up to make it look like a targeted swipe at the success of the NHS administration of our vaccination programme. Which then allows the Tories to come up smelling of roses instead of their usual aroma when they say 'er, no, we're going to vaccinate all UK citizens which is what we promised to do when talking about lockdowns'.

 

[flook]

While morally it might be the right thing to do it would be political suicide for the tory cunts and won't happen.

I think the WHO would see better support if they just asked the wealthy to stop jumping the queue.

 

[Kodama4]

I was on discord last night with friends (from all around UK/EU).
They where calling WHO traitors/backstabbers for calling out the UK to stop vaccinations, even though they received financial and moral backing from the UK when other countries abandoned them.

Argument went late into the night, some saying UK should pull out of Covax program..

(Just to clarify the UK guys were saying this. A few EU guys agreed as well, not everyone.)

 

[dapperbandit]

"I'm sorry, people of Britain, we would roll out the vaccine to all but the doctors say we are too good at this and will make everyone else look bad because we have done such an unbelievably good job." - the conservatives, imminently

 

[Redcrayon]

"I'm sorry, people of Britain, we would roll out the vaccine to all but the doctors say we are too good at this and will make everyone else look bad because we have done such an unbelievably good job." - the conservatives, imminently

Click to shrink...

Yep. They can spin it as a positive of Brexit too. 'The WHO says we are just too capable of resolving the local situation post-Brexit, and we need to let others catch up'

 

[War Peaceman]

On one hand yes, we should help others - eradicating covid is a shared goal with a and common benefit. But realistically we are one of the worst hit in the world (our own fault). We need to fix ourselves before others. We need the vaccine.

Our government is total shit but them prioritising their own is just obvious. Really those less affected should be pushed to do more.

 

[Paxton25]

lol they are closer to re-launcing the East India Company and going to find more vaccines in other places than make a humanitarian decision.

Click to shrink...

Totally forgetting that the Uk has provided more than 10% of the money for the Covax scheme ?

 

[Aprikurt]

I mean in a fantasy world where this happened, how would it even logistically work? Like would these be vaccines we have in the UK already, or stuff from Europe we haven't got yet?

 

[Deleted member 8166]

I doubt this will happen. The most intelligent imo would be to give other countries access to producing the vaccine themselves. If possible.

Click to shrink...

IIRC the Oxford vaccine was planned to be open source
someone please correct me if this was disproven by now. but yeah, an open source vaccine would have been great.

 

[gozu]

I'm not questioning whether it would be right or moral, it very likely would be, I'm saying that in a realpolitik sense it comes across as utterly clueless.

Click to shrink...

Yep. People still think planes haven't changed the world completely. Altruism and growing the tribe is the smart play (as it usually is!).

but humans be morons so.

 

[Joni]

IIRC the Oxford vaccine was planned to be open source
someone please correct me if this was disproven by now. but yeah, an open source vaccine would have been great.

Click to shrink...

It is certainly missing steps, as Merck was first looked at as a partner but that one got nixxed because it is an American company and Trump. AstraZeneca was brought forward as reliable partner by the UK government.

 

[Xun]

As someone from the UK I feel selfish in saying this but I hope they ignore this. Just because some people are not in as vunerable groups doesn't mean you're not vunerable to the virus. I want to get vaccinated as soon as humanly possible so I can avoid any long term effects and I want to be able to stop living terrified of stepping outside my front door.

Click to shrink...

I feel horrible for saying it, but I fully agree.

I would inevitably come down with the virus thanks to having to go to work, and then what? It could be incredibly mild, or it could be deadly. I would rather not find out.

The vaccines should definitely all be open source though.

 

[Deleted member 26591]

This is just incredibly naive and badly worded by the WHO

All they have to do is be more realistic, and say "we call on XX nation(s) to increase the amount of vaccines they are donating to the worldwide effort once they have completed vaccinating their most vulnerable"

A slight slow down in vaccinations for the "healthy" would probably have got nods and general acquiescence, but out and out saying "stop and give everything" is just frankly cloud cuckoo land levels of ridiculous.

 

[karnage10]

i can see why WHO says this but, IMO, it is extremely hard to convince someone to not get a vacine to a deadly disease. I phone everyday to people on 40-60 range that are crying because their spouse/child is in ICU and they don't know if they will ever see them again.
I just can't see how you can convince these people to pass up the vacine while there are so many of the non vulnerable population dying or getting into the ICU.

Personally what i think it should be done is removing the license of the vacines so that any lab can make them. While it isn't a perfect solution it would allow for a much increase in production capability specially to in development countries.

Also something else to consider, at least in Portugal, people without COVID19 are also dying a lot because hospitals can't help these people. If you only vaccinate vulnerable groups i wonder if you can even free enough of the hospital space to give attention to these people.
For example i have several patients that i suspect have a ehart disease but getting an ecocardiogram is hard it is taking months. I wonder how long they have to wait to ahve a valve repairing surgery. If it takes a year or 2 chances are they won't survive that time frame.

 

[345]

this is a completely unrealistic suggestion. the only sensible strategy for every country's vaccination program is to get the shot to as many people as possible as quickly as possible with minimal waste. introducing red tape and extra movement will literally kill people.

that said, it would be wholly in rich countries' interests to further subsidise vaccine programs in the rest of the world as soon as possible.

 

[Prophet Steve]

I mean in a fantasy world where this happened, how would it even logistically work? Like would these be vaccines we have in the UK already, or stuff from Europe we haven't got yet?

Click to shrink...

It would make more sense to ship those that haven't been received yet. There are already plans to donate excess vaccines without that being considered an problem, between everything that needs to happen it is a minor issue.

this is a completely unrealistic suggestion. the only sensible strategy for every country's vaccination program is to get the shot to as many people as possible as quickly as possible with minimal waste. introducing red tape and extra movement will literally kill people.

that said, it would be wholly in rich countries' interests to further subsidise vaccine programs in the rest of the world as soon as possible.

Click to shrink...

Why would vaccines going to other countries suddenly introduce red tape and extra movement? It is not like every vaccine in the UK is produced locally. And they already have multiple risk groups that are getting vaccinated.

There are many countries getting vaccins, but if we want to distribute it to additional ones there is suddenly too much red tape and movement?

 

[nekkid]

This is just incredibly naive and badly worded by the WHO

All they have to do is be more realistic, and say "we call on XX nation(s) to increase the amount of vaccines they are donating to the worldwide effort once they have completed vaccinating their most vulnerable"

A slight slow down in vaccinations for the "healthy" would probably have got nods and general acquiescence, but out and out saying "stop and give everything" is just frankly cloud cuckoo land levels of ridiculous.

Click to shrink...

There's a bit of context. The request is just lazy "we tried" rhetoric that was clearly going nowhere. But they were talking to the BBC so it makes sense to be specifically mentioning the UK.

However they did say they'd ask all nations, so I am interested in whether they've asked Israel and UAE yet.

 

[345]

Why would vaccines going to other countries suddenly introduce red tape and extra movement? It is not like every vaccine in the UK is produced locally. And they already have multiple risk groups that are getting vaccinated.

There are many countries getting vaccins, but if we want to distribute it to additional ones there is suddenly too much red tape and movement?

Click to shrink...

given the expiry dates and need for cold storage along every step of the way? i don't see how it'd be possible for vaccines not to get wasted if this were to be the distribution strategy. it's already an outrage that some first-world countries are letting shots go to waste because some people willing to take it aren't in the right category.

if they could be diverted before reaching some hypothetical rich country then sure, but there's no way that's going to happen. every government in the world is doing everything they can to get as many doses as they can because it's critical that everyone gets the two shots regardless of risk factors.

my feeling is that the more efficient approach would be for countries to sort themselves out ASAP and then engage in extremely proactive funding and facilitation for the rest of the world. it wouldn't even have to be out of altruism, it'd pay for itself.

 

[Joni]

I don't even get the point, it is not like the UK production is that significant when you have Serum Institute starting production and those are specifically meant for not the West.

given the expiry dates and need for cold storage along every step of the way?

Click to shrink...

Oxford vaccine has very limied cold storage needs, which is why it is the one considered ideal for low-income countries.

 

[UnderNewOwnership]

Having a sizable viral pool remain in a partly-vaccinated country sounds like a recipe for interesting mutations.

And, frankly, this smells to me like a soft-ball thrown by the WHO to have the CCP grandstand yet again over the "avarice of the Western imperialist nations".
The WHO is an ethically-compromised entity and its statements should not be taken at face value anymore.

 

[Deleted member 26591]

There's a bit of context. The request is just lazy "we tried" rhetoric that was clearly going nowhere. But they were talking to the BBC so it makes sense to be specifically mentioning the UK.

However they did say they'd ask all nations, so I am interested in whether they've asked Israel and UAE yet.

Click to shrink...

Oh yep, I agree.

But this just seems again to be the WHO not understanding the audience they're talking to. They just need to be a little less... Scientific. A bit more nuanced.

 

[Prophet Steve]

There's a bit of context. The request is just lazy "we tried" rhetoric that was clearly going nowhere. But they were talking to the BBC so it makes sense to be specifically mentioning the UK.

However they did say they'd ask all nations, so I am interested in whether they've asked Israel and UAE yet.

Click to shrink...

https://apnews.com/article/israel-h...ited-nations-4b1935f6e152b9479656e82f3411b36f

I think it is fair to say they would like Israel to help out too. And it is not they are asking each country personally, that hasn't happened with the UK either, the statement was in the context of an interview. Their question is aimed towards all countries, they are pushing a lot for an equal distribution of vaccines from all wealthy countries.

given the expiry dates and need for cold storage along every step of the way? i don't see how it'd be possible for vaccines not to get wasted if this were to be the distribution strategy. it's already an outrage that some first-world countries are letting shots go to waste because some people willing to take it aren't in the right category.

if they could be diverted before reaching some hypothetical rich country then sure, but there's no way that's going to happen. every government in the world is doing everything they can to get as many doses as they can because it's critical that everyone gets the two shots regardless of risk factors.

my feeling is that the more efficient approach would be for countries to sort themselves out ASAP and then engage in extremely proactive funding and facilitation for the rest of the world. it wouldn't even have to be out of altruism, it'd pay for itself.

Click to shrink...

That is only for the current vaccines, which indeed are more difficult to distribute in poorer countries. AstraZeneca works much better for that purpose but is still being bought up by countries that have the infrastructure to distribute other vaccines anyway. There are not a lot of places where vaccines are going to waste.

I do agree that I see little chance of it happening, even though it is the ethical thing to do.

Even if it would be better for the global economy to vaccinate everyone in rich countries first (which is a big if). Then there is also no way it is going to happen that those benefits would go to the rest of the world. That is as unrealistic as expecting them to divert the vaccines. I still think both those things should be pushed for, but they are also both unrealistic to happen.

 

[HazySaiyan]

If you're gonna try and appeal to British people's sense of fairness you're barking up the wrong tree

"I'm not waiting so Johnny Foreigner can steal my jab! English jabs for English people!"

 

[Menchi]

No, this is stupid. Vaccination doesn't work if you just stop, it'd end up with the unvaccinated population creating new strains requiring another wave of modified vaccines eventually.

 

[RisingStar]

Sure, WHO. They have been absolutely dire this whole year. How about you start acknowledging Taiwan while you're at it? Completely all over the place.

 

[Joni]

Sure, WHO. They have been absolutely dire this whole year. How about you start acknowledging Taiwan while you're at it? Completely all over the place.

Click to shrink...

Nobody recognizes Taiwan so they can't either.

 

[nekkid]

Oh yep, I agree.

But this just seems again to be the WHO not understanding the audience they're talking to. They just need to be a little less... Scientific. A bit more nuanced.

Click to shrink...

I'm not entirely convinced the suggestion is all that scientific tbh. Sure it seems like the "good" thing to do, but will it actually save as many lives in the end? You'd need a second opinion on that.

 

[345]

That is only for the current vaccines, which indeed are more difficult to distribute in poorer countries. AstraZeneca works much better for that purpose but is still being bought up by countries that have the infrastructure to distribute other vaccines anyway. There are not a lot of places where vaccines are going to waste.

I do agree that I see little chance of it happening, even though it is the ethical thing to do.

Even if it would be better for the global economy to vaccinate everyone in rich countries first (which is a big if). Then there is also no way it is going to happen that those benefits would go to the rest of the world. That is as unrealistic as expecting them to divert the vaccines. I still think both those things should be pushed for, but they are also both unrealistic to happen.

Click to shrink...

not sure i necessarily agree on the ethics but i can see the argument either way.

it's estimated that low vaccine access in developing countries could cost the rest of the world trillions of dollars, while just paying to vaccinate the planet would be something like $40 billion. maybe too much to hope that rich countries would look at that and figure something out, but it seems like it'd be the economically prudent move.