Vaccine Nationalism

With the problems in delivery of vaccines, there's much talk in the news about Vaccine Nationalism.

Herd immunity, and thus the end of the pandemic, relies on one, single factor - achieving immunity through vaccination in above (an estimated) 60% of the population. At that stage the virus is contained, with the by-product that mutations are very much less likely, as there are fewer people to infect, given the number of potential mutations is directly proportional to the number of infections.

If supplies of a vaccine are constrained, for whatever reason, then that herd immunity must ideally start at a focus point and spread outward. It is senseless to initiate a vaccination programme over an area where you're likely to run out of vaccine before the magic 60% lower estimate is reached, else herd immunity itself isn't reached and there will only be partial immunity. Once vaccine supplies do run out, the perimeter from the focus point where vaccination started (with a minimum of 60% population saturation) is the area where restrictions on movement should be imposed, as that is the limit of the region where herd immunity has been reached. It's not rocket science - it's simple logic. No-one comes in and no-one goes out, except in exceptional circumstances.

This is why countries must depend on having sufficient vaccines to achieve herd immunity within their borders, as borders can be policed. If not, it's pointless and a better strategy would be to simply vaccinate all those at the highest risk of complications, which will be fewer in number. However, it would not eliminate the virus, which would remain entrenched in the greater part of the population, with the attendant risk of mutation into a strain that those who have been vaccinated against may not be immune to.

National borders are important, as they can be monitored and controlled. Just think back on the Tier system we had in Autumn and over Christmas - that was a regional system and impossible to police. However, was it regionalism? Certainly. It attempted to contain areas of high infection and protected areas of low infection - with only sporadic success because of very porous borders between Tiers.

I'm not surprised in the least that the EU is seeking to guarantee the promised 300m doses of vaccine - that's 66.6% of its population - the magic number for herd immunity (bearing in mind that's only for one dose and some estimates for herd immunity go as high as 80% - but that does not take into account those who have already had the disease). If that were to be diluted, then herd immunity would not be reached. 

It's in every country's interests to ensure it has - at a minimum - vaccines for 2/3rds of its population. Call it Vaccine Nationalism if you want, and rail against it, but it's simple, common sense. If all the available vaccine doses predicted to be available by summer were to be shared around the world in an unprecedented act of altruism, then no country would achieve herd immunity. It would be a futile and wasteful exercise and akin to sharing a single aspirin between 10 people having a headache - no-one would benefit.

The prime directive of any authority is to protect those it's responsible for and I would expect the UK government to do no less. It's a competition for finite resources in order to bring a virus under some semblance of control, whether that be with the sole aim of preventing deaths or, indeed, to save the economy.

There is one other issue to consider - the repeated (albeit late) lockdowns were targeted at the express aim of reducing pressure on the NHS - we were told that repeatedly. Once the numbers came down to relieve pressure on the NHS, the brakes came off. It cannot therefore be said that the intention was ever to prevent infections, and hence deaths, per se. The economy took precedence over deaths and was the reason the brakes came off - several times. This must have a direct link to the fact we have the worst death rate in Europe. 

We were slow into the first lockdown in March 2020; we were slow in getting PPE to the frontline; we were slow to protect care homes; we were late with test and trace; we were slow into the 2nd lockdown in autumn; we were slow to change the disastrous Christmas mixing rules ; we were again slow into this 3rd lockdown and slow to effectively monitor our borders. Would anyone else have done better? Well, by any objective comparison, most world leaders HAVE indeed done better. At each turn, Johnson has resisted taking control until the escalating death toll left him no other choice.

I somehow think that had Corbyn or Starmer presided over this tour de force of incompetence, the blue scarf wearers would not have been as magnanimous as they have been toward Boris Johnson. The art of leadership is to be able to communicate urgency with the ability to communicate clearly and consistently; to do unpopular things and have the electorate fully on your side because they trust you. 

Johnson has shown, incontrovertibly, that he can't be trusted in anything. His focus is on the myth - the ending,  rather than the multiple cockups in between. Endings are very important to historical narrative, as those are remembered and define it. Once this virus is behind us, the only narrative will be how Johnson's performance was a resounding success due to his Churchillian handling of the vaccination programme. He will define the story of Britain’s pandemic based on the memory of its ending, not the bulk of its disastrous experience. It's little wonder there's no appetite for an inquiry, which inspects the entire timeline and not just the ending.

The Lowy Institute has compiled a report on how countries and regions have fared against a number of metrics. It makes interesting reading, especially the following comment; "The dividing line in effective crisis response has not been regime type, but whether citizens trust their leaders, and whether those leaders preside over a competent and effective state. In general, countries with smaller populations, cohesive societies, and capable institutions have a comparative advantage in dealing with a global crisis such as a pandemic."