What has the past reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic taught us? We have seen that many low and middle-income countries (LMICs) still lack access to vaccines, and it seems little progress has been made in the last few months and year. This article discusses whether the current strategies, most notably, vaccine donations by the international community and the COVID-19 global access facility COVAX, offer meaningful solutions to tackle the problem. At the centre of our analysis, we compare the concepts (...) of “donations” and “charity” with “vaccine equity” and the “empowerment” of poorer countries. We suggest that the achievement of fair global vaccine production requires that our global approach is supportive of the idea of empowerment. We, therefore, need structural reforms, which would most importantly include capacity building, to positively impact this goal and to take the interests of the global poor seriously. (shrink)

Pharmaceutical companies developed Covid-19 vaccines in record time. However, it soon became apparent that global access to the vaccines was inequitable. Through a qualitative inquiry as the pandemic unfolded (to mid-2021), we provide an in-depth analysis of why companies engaged with the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX), identifying the internal (to the company) and external factors that facilitated or impeded engagement. While all producers of the World Health Organization (WHO)-approved vaccines engaged with COVAX, our analysis highlights the (...) differential levels of COVAX engagement and identifies contractual obligations, opportunities and company strategy, and reputational pressures as key explanatory factors. We discuss our empirical findings relative to the literature on political corporate social responsibility (PCSR). Accordingly, we question whether pharmaceutical companies lived up to their responsibilities as corporate citizens and conclude that they failed to fulfill the implied responsibility of combating inequitable vaccine distribution. We conclude with implications of our research for practice, in relation to the challenges of global access to Covid-19 vaccines and for access to medicines more generally. (shrink)

The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility represents an unprecedented global collaboration facilitating the development and distribution of vaccines for COVID-19. COVAX pools and channels funds from state and non-state actors to promising vaccine candidates, and has started to distribute successful candidates to participating states. The WHO, one of the leaders of COVAX, recognised vaccine doses would initially be scarce, and therefore, prepared a two-staged allocation mechanism they considered fair. In the first stage, vaccine doses are distributed equally among (...) participating countries, while in the second stage vaccine doses will be allocated according to a country’s need. Ethicists have questioned whether this is the fairest distribution—they argue a country’s need should be taken into account from the start and correspondingly, have proposed a framework that treats individuals with equal moral concern, aims to minimise harm and gives priority to the worst-off. In this paper, we seek to explore these concerns by comparing COVAX’s allocation mechanism to a targeted allocation based on need. We consider which distribution would more likely maximise well-being and align with principles of equity. We conclude that although in theory, a targeted distribution in proportion to a country’s need would be more morally justifiable, when political realities are taken into account, an equal distribution seems more likely to avert a greater number of deaths and reduce disparities. (shrink)

A truly global bioethics involves cooperation and collaboration among countries. Most of the articles published in bioethics journals address a problem that exists in one or more countries, but the articles typically do not discuss solutions that require collaboration or cooperation. COVAX is one example of proposed international cooperation related to the current COVID-19. pandemic. Yet it is evident that nations have been proceeding on their own with little, if any collaboration. Despite international research ethics guidance from the World (...) Health Organization, an article published under WHO auspices violates an ethical principle rejecting “double standards” in the conduct of global research. The COVID pandemic provides an opportunity for countries to learn from the recent lack of international cooperation and employ a multi-national strategy in future global health crises. (shrink)

In the context of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the fast and equitable distribution of effective vaccines worldwide is one of the challenges faced by international institutions in charge, as global equity in vaccine supply has not yet been achieved. Our paper explains the current state of ethical research on equity in global COVID-19 vaccine allocation, focusing on the COVAX Facility established by the WHO, acting as the global vaccine distributor. The article presents a detailed analysis of the first year (...) of COVAX allocation in 2021 identifying problematic aspects of its allocation framework regarding the implementation of COVAX’s fundamental allocation principles. We argue that the COVAX Facility has developed a proper concept to deal with global vaccine allocation—but to address uncovered defaults, we introduce the ‘Prioritized Distribution of Equal Shares’ model—a both ethical and practically feasible alternative allocation framework to protect the value of human lives in both high- and low-income countries through fair and fast global vaccine distribution in health emergencies. Nonetheless, we argue that the COVAX Facility remains the main organization to provide equitable access to vaccines. Yet, the global community has to consider further aspects such as patent protection, vaccine production and the lack of power of global structures to address the inequities that have arisen. Since new wars and further crises have arisen, a shift in public global attention endangers the processing of COVID-19-related issues. That is why now more than ever extensive efforts to achieve vaccine equity are needed. (shrink)

Introduction: There is currently no binding, internationally accepted and successful approach to ensure global equitable access to healthcare during a pandemic. The aim of this ethical analysis is to bring into the discussion a legally regulated vaccine allocation as a possible strategy for equitable global access to vaccines. We focus our analysis on COVAX (COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access) and an existing EU regulation that, after adjustment, could promote global vaccine allocation. -/- Methods: The main documents discussing the two strategies (...) are examined with a qualitative content analysis. The ethical values reasonableness, openness and transparency, inclusiveness, responsiveness and accountability serve as categories for our ethical analysis. -/- Results: We observed that the decision-making processes in a legal solution to expand access to vaccines would be more transparent than in COVAX initiative, would be more inclusive, especially of nation states, and the values responsiveness and accountability could be easily incorporated in the development of a new regulation. -/- Discussion: A legal strategy that offers incentives to the pharmaceutical industry in return for global distribution of vaccines according to the Fair Priority Model is an innovative way to achieve global and equitable access to vaccines. However, in the long term, achieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require from all nations to work in solidarity to find durable solutions for global vaccine research and development. Interim solutions, such as our proposed legal strategy for equitable access to vaccines, and efforts to find long-term solutions must be advanced in parallel. (shrink)

While COVID-19 vaccines provide light at the end of the tunnel in a difficult time, they also bring forth the complex ethical issue of global vaccine distribution. The current unequal global distribution of vaccines is unjust towards the vulnerable living in low-income countries. A vaccine tax should be introduced to remedy this. Under such a scheme, a small fraction of the money spent by a country on vaccines for its own population would go into a fund, such as COVAX, (...) dedicated to buying vaccines and distributing them to the world’s poorest. A vaccine tax would provide a much-needed injection of funds to remedy the unequal distribution of vaccines. The tax allows for a distribution that, to a lesser degree, reflects the ability to pay and is superior to a donation-based model because it minimises the opportunity for free-riding. (shrink)

While rich countries like the USA and UK are starting to vaccinate their populations against COVID-19, poor countries may lack access to a vaccine for years. A global effort to provide vaccines through the COVAX facility Accelerator) aims to distribute 2 billion vaccinations by the end of next year, but the USA has refused to join and even those rich countries that have joined are entering into bilateral deals with pharmaceutical companies to buy up the supply. Canada, for instance, (...) has already secured enough to vaccinate its entire population nine times over, and the USA, European Union, UK, Australia and Japan can vaccinate their populations between 2 and 8 x.1 Vaccine nationalism is neither ethically justified, nor even in rich countries’ long-term self-interest. No one deserves the luck of their birth and few have much control over their country of residence. So, when there are four ventilators per 12 million people in some low-income and middle-income countries, and people are being buried in cardboard boxes in mass graves, it is simply unconscionable to argue that wealthy countries can keep their vaccines to themselves or even help their populations first.2 Vaccine nationalism fails to respect basic human rights and the people who have them. Moreover, many argue that rich countries have contributed to global poverty through a shared and violent history of colonialism and oppression and profit from instituting, upholding and sustaining coercive rules that often exacerbate, rather than alleviate, global poverty.3 Be that as it may, putting basic health systems in place to ensure everyone can get vaccinated, not only against COVID-19 but a host of other terrible diseases, would better protect even the rich from …. (shrink)

This article outlines and compares current and proposed global institutional mechanisms to increase equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, focusing on their institutional and operational complementarities and overlaps. It specifically considers the World Health Organization's (WHO’s) COVAX (COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access) model as part of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-A) initiative, the WHO’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP) initiative, the proposed TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Agreement) intellectual property waiver and other proposed WHO and World Trade Organization (...) technology transfer proposals. We argue that while various individual mechanisms each have their specific individual merits—and in some cases weaknesses—overall, many of these current and proposed mechanisms could be highly complementary if used together to deliver equitable global access to vaccines. Nonetheless, we also argue that there are risks posed by the proliferation of proposals in this context, including the potential to disperse stakeholder attention or to delay decisive action. Therefore, we argue that there is now a clear need for concerted global multilateral action to recognise the complementarities of specific models and to provide a pathway for collaboration in attaining global equitable access to vaccines. The institutional infrastructure or proposals to achieve this amply exist at this point in time—but much greater cooperation from industry and clear, decisive and coordinated action from states and international organisations are urgently needed. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the question, ‘What do we owe each other as members of a global community during a global health crisis?’ In tandem, it has raised underlying concerns about how we should prepare for the next infectious disease outbreak and what we owe to people in other countries during normal times. While the prevailing bioethics literature addresses these questions drawing on values and concepts prominent in the global north, this paper articulates responses prominent in sub-Saharan Africa. The (...) paper first introduces a figurative ‘global health village’ to orient readers to African traditional thought. Next, it considers ethical requirements for governing a global health village, drawing on the ethic of ubuntu to formulate African renderings of solidarity, relational justice and sufficiency. The final section of the paper uses these values to critique current approaches, including COVAX, the vaccines pillar of the Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) accelerator, and a proposed international Pandemic Treaty. It proposes a path forward that better realizes ubuntu in global health. (shrink)

In 2020, the world faced a new pandemic. The corona infection hit an unprepared world, and there were no medicines and no vaccines against it. Research to develop vaccines started immediately and in a remarkably short time several vaccines became available. However, despite initiatives for global equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, vaccines have so far become accessible only to a minor part of the world population. In this article, I discuss the global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines from an ethical point (...) of view. I reflect on what ethical principles should guide the global distribution of vaccines and what global justice and international solidarity imply for vaccine distribution and I analyse the reasons for states to prioritize their own citizens. My focus is on ethical reasons for and against ‘vaccine nationalism’ and ‘vaccine cosmopolitanism.’ My point of departure is the appeal for international solidarity from several world leaders, arguing that ‘Where you live should not determine whether you live’. I discuss the COVAX initiative to enable a global vaccination and the proposal from India and South Africa to the World Trade Organization to temporarily waive patent rights for vaccines. In the final section, I argue for global vaccine sufficientarianism, which is a modified version of vaccine cosmopolitanism. (shrink)

The global inequality in the distribution of vaccines is unjust. As countries scrambled to ensure enough vaccines, the world’s poorest were left to fend for themselves, and the generosity meant to mitigate this through COVAX was not sufficiently forthcoming. In light of this, I proposed a vaccine tax, which obligates those willing and able to pay to protect their own population to contribute to protecting those residing in the world’s low-income countries. Petrovic has offered an important critique of this (...) proposal, questioning both the fairness and the efficiency of the tax. However, when properly specified, the vaccine tax is not vulnerable to these critiques. (shrink)

Una vez que se desarrollen vacunas efectivas contra la enfermedad del coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), estas serán escasas. Esto plantea la cuestión de cómo distribuirlas equitativamente entre países. La asignación de vacunas entre países plantea cuestiones complejas y controvertidas que involucran la opinión pública, la diplomacia, la economía, la salud pública y otras consideraciones. Sin embargo, muchos líderes nacionales, organizaciones internacionales y productores de vacunas reconocen que un factor central en esta toma de decisiones es la ética [1, 2]. No obstante, (...) se ha avanzado poco en la definición de lo que constituye una distribución internacional equitativa de vacunas. Muchos han respaldado la “distribución equitativa de la vacuna contra el COVID-19” sin describir un marco o sin ofrecer recomendaciones [3, 4]. Se han presentado dos propuestas sustantivas para la asignación internacional de una vacuna contra la COVID19, pero presentan graves fallas. Ofrecemos una propuesta más éticamente defendible y práctica para la distribución equitativa de la vacuna COVID19: el Modelo de la Prioridad Equitativa. El Modelo de la Prioridad Justa está orientado principalmente a tres grupos. Una es la alianza COVAX, encabezada por GAVI (por sus siglas en inglés), la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) y la Coalición para Innovaciones en Preparación para Epidemias (CEPI por sus siglas en inglés), que tiene la intención de comprar vacunas para distribuirlas equitativamente entre países [5]. Un segundo grupo son los productores de vacunas. Afortunadamente, muchos productores se han comprometido públicamente con una distribución internacional de vacunas “amplia y equitativa” [2]. El último grupo son los gobiernos nacionales, algunos de los cuales también se han comprometido públicamente con una distribución equitativa [1]. Estos grupos necesitan un marco claro para reconciliar valores en competencia, uno que ellos y otros aceptarán legítimamente como ético y no solo como una afirmación de poder. El Modelo de la Prioridad Justa especifica lo que implica una distribución equitativa de vacunas, dando contenido a sus compromisos. Además, la aceptación de este marco ético común reducirá la duplicación y el desperdicio, lo que facilitará los esfuerzos por lograr una distribución equitativa. Eso, a su vez, promoverá la confianza de los productores en que las vacunas se asignarán de manera equitativa para beneficiar a las personas, lo que motivará un aumento en el suministro de vacunas para distribución internacional. (shrink)

This letter attempts to put some preliminary thoughts on the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to Foucault's writings on Biopower, critique of Capitalism, and global wealth injustice. The Letter concludes that schemes, such as COVAX, which are meant to overcome global wealth inequalities, serve better as visible symptoms of these inequalities.

The development of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) presented a unique set of challenges. There was a global need for safe, effective vaccines against a new virus. In response to the development of vaccines for COVID-19 (some of which used novel technologies), there was a proliferation of no-fault compensation schemes (NFCS) for COVID-19 vaccine injuries. We identified 28 national vaccine injury NFCS operating in December 2019. Just 2 years later, over 130 countries had some NFCS coverage for COVID-19 vaccines. This rapid (...) expansion was primarily driven by the creation of three multinational schemes. The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) scheme covers vaccines given under the COVAX framework in 92 low and middle-income countries across the globe. The African Vaccines Acquisition Trust (AVAT) scheme covers vaccines administered under the AVAT framework in 36 African and Caribbean countries. The UNICEF scheme covers vaccines administered by UNICEF in 18 Asian countries.Because of the sudden expansion of no-fault compensation for vaccine injury, especially in developing economies, more research on the foundations, procedures and outcomes of NFCS is needed. In this article, we examine how these NFCS meet the needs of individual claimants and society more widely. To do so, we first review the rationales offered to support the creation of vaccine injury NFCS. We then argue that, in order to achieve their function as compensation mechanisms, NFCS should be accessible and offer substantive and procedural justice to claimants. Finally, we focus on transparency and accountability as necessary requirements to allow scrutiny over existing NFCS and their wider impacts. (shrink)

This paper analyzes the situation generated by the unequal distribution of vaccines that -at the international level- has occurred in the framework of the epidemic generated by COVID-19. For this, the concepts of «act» and «word» derived from the theoretical-political theses of Hannah Arendt (1993) are used, with which it was sought to evidence the situation of neocolonialism of vaccines derived from this situation, from the philosophical deconstruction to raise the urgent consequence of neocolonialism in health, which allowed us to (...) infer how Human Rights are not the central axis of the national and state discourses or praxis of the government systems of countries with more stable and stronger economies, since the decisions and behaviors reflect the interests of the main actors of the National States that have economic support for the large-scale purchase of vaccines against COVID-19. Which in turn are the protagonists of a sociopolitical phenomenon that can be categorized as global health neocolonialism, which is presented as a phenomenon of neocolonialism that began with the confidentiality agreements signed between the States of the countries and the pharmaceutical corporations, inside or outside COVAX in the year 2020. Concluding that the massive purchase of vaccines was subject to an exclusivity character to acquire the batches, where some factors of discrimination or non-inclusion are revealed, affirming that COVAX did not comply with the purpose for what was initially created. (shrink)

The seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic requires a look into the implementation of drug registration rules for COVID-19 vaccines. Amidst the surrounding exigencies, vaccines being a biological product, require comprehensive and continuing pre and post registration rules to ensure their safety and efficacy. The study focuses on Malaysia which has rules on drug registration that have been successfully applied to vaccines. The study shows that the rules have been tailor-made to emergency situations. At the moment, special rules have been introduced (...) including to allow use of COVID-19 vaccines as unregistered product. Recognition of COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) facility and requirement for government sale only, are among the safety valves. The study shows that these however are temporary measures against the backdrops of possible entry of private players in the vaccination process. Therefore, regulatory responses to intellectual property (IP) related conditions underlying drug registration, and measures to ensure risk management involved in vaccine production, approval and administration are needed in the progressive rules pending further development of research in the area. (shrink)

DISEASE X is the codename given by the World Health Organisation to a pathogen currently unknown to science that could cause havoc to humankind. Emerging infections are sending us multiple warnings that another Disease X is looming. We've had SARS in 2002, H5N1 bird flu in 2004, H1N1 'swine flu' in 2009, MERS in 2012, Ebola in 2014, Zika in 2015 and now COVID-19. These events are not freak events, but are happening continually, and at an increasing cadence. Written by (...) a long-standing ex-Reuters global health and science correspondent, DISEASE X will use privileged access to the body leading international efforts to control viruses, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), and its CEO, Dr Richard Hatchett. CEPI seed-funded three successful COVID vaccines, including Astra-Zeneca and Moderna. DISEASE X will explore the emergence of the novel coronavirus and the crisis it caused, analysing the responses of global health organisations and experts, including the WHO, national governments such as Britain, China and the USA, COVAX, the global vaccine allocation facility, pharmaceutical companies, and leading research scientists. Weaving in insights from the likes of Bill Gates, Sir Jeremy Farrar, Dr Anthony Fauci and Sir Patrick Vallance, the book will explain how the world's public health scientists are embarking on a 100 Days Mission to snuff out future threats before they become deadly pandemics. This is the inside story written for the public. (shrink)

With the coronavirus pandemic and the Omicron variant once again forcing countries into lockdown, this essay seeks to outline a Foucauldian critique of various legal measures taken by the Danish government to cope with COVID-19 during the first year and a half of the pandemic. The essay takes a critical look at the extra-legal measures employed by the Danish government, as the Danish politicians attempted to halt the spread of the, now almost forgotten, Cluster 5 COVID-19 variant. This situation will (...) serve as a critical point from where to start using Foucault’s writings on life and biopolitics in order to expose various legally problematic governmental decisions that became visible during the handling of COVID-19 in general and the Cluster 5 mutation in particular. Reframing the pandemic within Foucault’s concept of biopolitics, this essay concludes that the state of exception has led to an increase in biopolitical logic, where some lives have come to matter more than others. As a critical counterpoint to this logic, the conclusion suggests that the notion of biocommunism could provide a suitable reconfiguration of communism. A reconfiguration that could mitigate some of the issues related to biopolitics is uncovered earlier in the essay. (shrink)