Times of uncertainty, new forms of life

There are countless aspects related to the pandemic caused by COVID-19 that force us to rethink old patterns, old habits, the way we operate, raising enough questions and doubts for the next, many, years.

How are companies going to organise the work of their employees? Will healthcare systems be able to develop a preventive dimension that will stop, in new (inevitable) pandemic outbreaks in the future, the type of disruption witnessed in the past year from occurring? Are we going to live in increasingly multicentre cities? And human relations, in the aftermath of lockdowns, will they be as they were, empathic? Will kissing and embracing return (at least in Latin countries) as a common, ordinary, simple and powerful form of expression of greeting or expressing friendship and love?

Among the myriad of existing studies, surveys, articles and books on the “post-pandemic future”, I recall a short text published on the Science News website in December last year¹, of which I would like to give you an excerpt, sentences from testimonies contained there (all by north-Americans) that show the uncertainty and risks associated with the times we live in:

One historian, John Barry, a university professor, writes that “If the virus remains a threat, the changes can be profound as a result of de-densification (if there is such word) of life in general. This trend would affect where and how people live and work, the housing market, real estate practices and the interior design of buildings”.

Katherine Hirschfeld, a medical anthropologist, considers the growth of the political division and economic inequality likely, although, if the vaccine is effective, she does not think that “a post-Covid world will become a post-pandemic world”.

A sociologist at Indiana University, Anna Mueller, writes that we are going to witness an increase in the number of children who have suffered deprivation, insecurity and traumatic stress, with possible long-term consequences for their physical and mental health and academic results.

Another Harvard sociologist, Mario Luis Small, thinks that when the virus is under control, companies, organizations and governments are going to start travelling less; but he has more doubts than certainties: “I wonder what strategies people have learned to fight loneliness and avoid isolation, which will persist after the pandemic and how these strategies can affect our feeling of being part of the collective”. Excellent questions.

Finally Christopher McKnight Nichols, also a historian, recalls the aftermath of the Spanish flu and projects the growth of collective activities such as concerts and sporting events. And he concludes: “An open question is whether social behaviours that we take for granted, such as shaking hands and hugging, will survive”.

Such opinions are expressed repeatedly in the United States in these particular cases, but also Europe and other parts of the world. Common to almost all is doubt and questioning – what will the future hold (even though it is always difficult to speculate, despite Jules Verne)?

In general, opinions are unanimous and the places where we will meet when the dust of these days of fear and loneliness settles will not be the same we have lived in the past few years. It remains to be seen if it ever was…

Quite recently in Portugal, an epidemiologist, Filipe Froes, stated that “we will hardly return to pre-pandemic life”.

So many new questions about new paths and so much to discover.

Vaccination and an ancient virus: toxic nationalism

This dimension is not new and emerged at the beginning of global vaccination and concerns the manner how each State, or set of States (for example, the European Union) acted, and is acting, in the race for vaccines, their use, and their relationship with the outside world. In a way, we are witnessing the resurgence of a specific nationalism related to the vaccination process, guided by lines of geopolitical fracture whose main driver is national selfishness.

A kind of every man for himself and we are best suited to do it (the richest, the most powerful, the most influential, actually cumulative qualities). Once again, national selfishness is showing its dark side, in the purest form of “us first” and let others die as they please.

The examples are much more than the exceptions. Countless countries – in fact, all countries – have embarked on the vaccine race, trying to be the first to achieve group immunity, inoculating as many of their citizens as possible; which, in itself, would be all right, if this race were not exclusive – that is, it excludes all others.

The process was based mainly on the agreements established by those countries that were able to sign such agreements with pharmaceutical companies, seeking to guarantee the vaccination of the respective populations before the others.

The name attributable to this phenomenon is “vaccine nationalism”.

We know today that only a few countries are leading this race, starting with Israel, followed closely by the United States, United Kingdom, Japan and Europe. The purchase of vaccines started long before clinical trials were concluded. In August 2020, months before vaccines were available, these countries had already ordered more than 2 billion doses, with the UK at the head – 5 doses for every citizen according to the 340 million vaccines ordered by the country.

By January 1st, 2021, more than 10% of Israelis had already received the first dose of the vaccine. About 150,000 people were being vaccinated daily. Israel has developed up a highly centralized and quick vaccination plan,

Both expeditious and ambitious; and agreed to pay more per person than most other countries².

The United Kingdom and the United States entered into very early contracts for the purchase of vaccines, also at high prices, and dispensed with the responsibility of pharmaceuticals³ to be in the first line of vaccine beneficiaries.

Europe (European Union) has also signed agreements for the purchase of millions of doses, despite the delays as to its conclusion, seeking lower prices and trying to secure the producers’ responsibility for eventual faults or defects in vaccines. And there is China, of course, which owns its vaccine and whose information is scarce in the process, the same being true of the Russian vaccine.

In the process, however, the least developed countries – most of the world’s inhabitants – have been left behind. The problem is, in the first place, a moral one – to what extent or is it even human, in such a globalized world should we accept so many inequalities to access an essential good such as health and life; how can we save citizens from rich countries and leave millions of people from poor countries behind, to die in many cases?

The question, is neither and cannot be political or ideological (except for the natural cynical and self-serving perceptions that are uttered about it), and is undoubtedly naive, but it cannot fail to be asked for the sake of mankind and what it means to be human.

But the problem is not only moral, it is also (and perhaps most of all) economic. A January study by the ICC⁴ ( International Chamber of Commerce) found that the lack of investment in the so-called Accelerator for Access to Mechanisms against Covid-19 (ACT – Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator) can cause impacts in excess of more than € 9.2 billion, resulting from shocks in supply and demand in an open economy based on global supply chains. In other words, developed economies may be successful in vaccinating their populations, see China, Israel and the United Kingdom, but they are not being successful when it comes to containing the contagion worldwide.

The sub-optimal distribution of vaccines at the international level causes a serious rupture in the global commercial system, with very significant impacts on the product (GNP) of all countries – vaccinated or not. The lack of investment in the COVAX pillar, whose president is José Manuel Durão Barroso, leads to economic losses.

As the aforementioned study by the ICC shows, the losses resulting from nationalism – from selfishness, in short – in this matter, can reach 4% of the product, that is, of wealth, of the more developed economies, when compared to a reality of access under at least similar conditions to vaccination. Remember that this study dates back to January – and the situation is not much better at the end of March, quite the contrary.

And in Europe? Ah, Europe …

Despite the promises, and the aforementioned agreements Europeans feel disappointed with the European Commission and with the Union itself, as the number of vaccinated citizens is still much lower than in other countries, such as the UK, for example. The Member States, more than others, are doing what they can: they close and open borders according to their needs; buy vaccines not sanctioned by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), such as the Russian and even, to a lesser extent, the Chinese; they even suspend the use of vaccines without an EMA recommendation, as happened with the Astrazeneca vaccine (although, in this case, they resumed it as soon as the Agency confirmed the huge benefits of the vaccine, compared to the low risks involved ).

This situation is perhaps unfair, at least in part, as the European Union has not waived the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies in the contracts signed with them, in case of serious problems with vaccines, as the United Kingdom did, for example; nor did it approve each vaccine almost immediately, trying to ensure the safety of the populations, even though the process was often too slow in view of the urgency of the situation; and did not suspend the export of vaccines, except for Italy.

It is worth recalling that the European Union, unlike other countries (in fact, unlike most other countries) has made an effort to collaborate and help less developed countries, sharing millions of doses. Europe is the world’s largest provider of vaccines, exporting a greater number than it has access to, given the high number of production sites located on the continent.

Also, in considering vaccination to be in the common interest of the Union as a whole, the organization has ensured that there are no significant differences between European citizens in access to vaccines; and if for some countries, the richest, this is not an advantage, it safeguards at least European integration from the risk of a significant fracture, which would further erode the feeling of unity among the continent’s citizens.

None of this, however, makes European vaccination policy more acceptable in the eyes of all those who are anxiously awaiting the end of the pandemic and in light of the mismatches and Europe is grappled once again with outbreaks of considerable size and seriousness. And the European Commission’s new and recent promise to supply 300 million vaccines by July is more crucial, as it raises expectations in a scenario of scepticism and protests – a new failure will undoubtedly have a major and negative impact on this bloc’s credibility.

It remains to be seen how it will work – and what will be the consequences of opening borders and travel within the bloc and outside this bloc – the free digital transit, first announced by Ursula von der Leyen and confirmed by Margrethe Vestager. Will the European Union be able to convince all Member States to participate and what effects will the document have on the Schengen area and free movement in Europe?

With “bazooka” or without it, what is at stake in the near future is also the destiny of Europe and the integration process of 27 countries, 27 populations and the communities of origin and destination that are part of it.

Conclusion

This article is about the so-called “vaccine nationalism”.

It is a serious disease, as serious as the virus that vaccines try to fight.

Contrary to what its supporters claim, it is economic nonsense, in an extremely globalized and interdependent world.

And it is a clear sign of the moral hazard humanity incurs in times of crisis.

The manner how we will be able to overcome it, the World that emerges as a result of the end – or trivialization? – of the pandemic, doesn’t have to be worse than the world, now so distant and so different, we lived in until the beginning of 2020.

But if we don’t learn from the lessons received during this period, it can be. And the harms of nationalism, vaccine or identity, aggressive or surreptitious, which preclude the rights of others to benefit, exclusively, ours, is one of those lessons – perhaps the most important. 

¹ https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-19-coronavirus-life-after-pandemic-ends-predictions 2 Referred for example

² in https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-said-to-be-paying-average-of-47-per-person-for-pfizer-moderna-vaccines  

³ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-astrazeneca-results-vaccine-liability-idUSKCN24V2EN                                

 ⁴ https://iccwbo.org/publication/the-economic-case-for-global-vaccinations/