Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

U.S. Refuses to Join Global Coronavirus Vaccine Efforts

Politics
U.S. Refuses to Join Global Coronavirus Vaccine Efforts
Trump speaks during a news conference in the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on Aug. 4, 2020 in Washington, DC. Drew Angerer / Getty Images

The U.S. has decided to stick to its isolationist strategy for developing, producing and distributing a vaccine for the novel coronavirus. On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced that it will not take part in the international efforts led by the World Health Organization (WHO) to distribute a vaccine equally around the world, according to The Washington Post.


That means that if a vaccine is first developed in the U.S., it will stay here and likely go to the highest bidders rather than the corners of the world that most need it, but are unable to pay for it.

Last month, the WHO announced that 172 countries around the world were joining together to form the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility, or COVAX, which will work to develop, test and distribute the vaccine equally, according to The Guardian. COVAX is a joint effort put together by the WHO, along with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.

Asked on Monday if the U.S. would join COVAX, White House spokesperson Judd Deere issued a statement that read: "The United States will continue to engage our international partners to ensure we defeat this virus, but we will not be constrained by multilateral organizations influenced by the corrupt World Health Organization and China."

COVAX plans to purchase and distribute roughly 2 billion doses of a coronavirus vaccine by the end of 2021. On Tuesday, the European Commission announced that it will contribute $478 million to the effort, which includes many U.S. trading partners and allies, like Germany and Japan.

The refusal by the U.S. to participate in a global effort to fight the coronavirus is worrying to public health officials and to academics who see international cooperation as a necessity to stopping the virus in an interconnected world. It also is an ominous harbinger when facing other international threats, such as the climate crisis.

Kendall Hoyt, an assistant professor at Dartmouth's Geisel School of Medicine, told The Washington Post that the move was akin to opting out of an insurance policy.

Experts say that the idea beyond COVAX is to discourage hoarding of the vaccine and to focus first on high-risk populations around the world, which, in the long run, will benefit the global community, according to The Washington Post.

"No one is safe until everyone is safe. No one country has access to research and development, manufacturing and all the supply chain for all essential medicines and materials," said WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in August, as The Guardian reported. "We need to prevent vaccine nationalism."

Some in the Trump administration see the benefit in international cooperation. According to The Washington Post, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun both wanted to explore a role for the U.S. in COVAX, but were shut down by administration officials who believe the U.S. has enough vaccine candidates that it can take a nationalist strategy.

However, that's a bet that can have dire consequences for the U.S. either way. If a U.S. vaccine candidate does not work, the country will have no vaccine while the rest of the world does. Alternatively, if a U.S. vaccine does work, then the country will have a vaccine and distribute it to low-risk people, leaving its trading partners and potential tourists in the lurch.

"The behavior of countries when it comes to vaccines in this pandemic will have political repercussions beyond public health," said Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Center at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, to The Washington Post. "It's about, are you a reliable partner or, at the end of the day, are you going to keep all your toys for yourself?"

With restaurants and supermarkets becoming less viable options during the pandemic, there has been a growth in demand and supply of local food. Baker County Tourism Travel Baker County / Flickr

By Robin Scher

Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.

Read More Show Less

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A technician inspects a bitcoin mining operation at Bitfarms in Saint Hyacinthe, Quebec on March 19, 2018. LARS HAGBERG / AFP via Getty Images

As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.

Read More Show Less
OR-93 traveled hundreds of miles from Oregon to California. Austin Smith Jr. / Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs / California Department of Fish and Wildlife

An Oregon-born wolf named OR-93 has sparked conservation hopes with a historic journey into California.

Read More Show Less
A plume of exhaust extends from the Mitchell Power Station, a coal-fired power plant built along the Monongahela River, 20 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, on Sept. 24, 2013 in New Eagle, Pennsylvania. The plant, owned by FirstEnergy, was retired the following month. Jeff Swensen / Getty Images

By David Drake and Jeffrey York

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The Big Idea

People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.

Read More Show Less