I'm not sure I follow the argument about bad new variants arising especially in immuno-compromised individuals. Let's say that's right, reasonably. Wouldn't the number of those cases still scale approximately with the total number of infections? In that case, the selfish argument would still be correct. Since the people who it might reach probably exist, it seems strange to make a shaky case against it. It's not like it contradicts the argument from basic decency.
I think one part that I find so fascinating is the mental model policymakers have of the populace. They are constantly emphasizing the “it’s for our own good” side of the argument—which is shaky, at best—and rarely appealing to the argument from basic decency. So they clearly assume that either that’s the majority of the populace or they themselves are more moved by that one? So in some sense, whatever works. In another sense, what does this say about how, say, the Beltway/Acela corridor thinks about the population. Not necessarily arguing they are totally wrong but it’s not coming together as a coherent argument either. Something to explore.
I still think the "We're all in this together" theme integrates decency and self-interest in a very natural way. People have been known to show both traits!
I think this is not about selfishness; it's about how far you (think you) have come with vaccinating your own country.
I'm not sure if it has fully filtered through into American society that the US has enough (non-AZ) jabs for every of its citizens. (In fact I'm keeping up with US news and I only learnt of this from you -- and even then I'm a tad doubtful. You are talking about doses in reserve or doses ordered? Is this sourced from the FDA, the CDC, the companies or the Biden admin?)
As a German, I was somewhat aggravated to read your previous post (for no fault of yours) -- Merkel and various EU officials have started talking of vaccinating developing countries before Germany even had 5% of its doses administered; very few places in the EU are anywhere near the maturity of their vaccine rollout where this kind of discussion has a chance of attracting anything besides irritation among voters. And unlike the US, we don't have a second-choice vaccine that we know for sure we cannot use. If I was in the US and knew that it's just a matter of money, I'd be more sympathetic to sharing around.
Yes I understand. Most Americans had no idea about this surplus—I’ve received so many startled responses—and that’s partially why I wrote this piece: hoping to change the political calculus of sitting on them “just in case”.
I believe that this argument doesn't sufficiently account for how political leaders of countries capable of mass producing vaccines will act. First the national leader will take care of their own countrymen. Next they will take care of their neighbors. After that decisions will get more complicated having to balance the advantages of helping allies with the need to bring the pandemic to an end. As long as a country can produce vaccines, national leaders will want to distribute them, if for no other reason than to obviate the risk what may happen if the virus is allowed to evolve.
I just got my first shot today (Moderna). And, I spoke with someone in London who completed the AstraZeneca shots and is witnessing the political ping pong of "potential bodily backlash" from getting the shot. I had that conversation prior to my getting my shot today...which gave me pause.
Congratulations, though! And yeah, there is a way in which AstraZeneca is now embroiled in many problems, part making of the initial team and part what happened afterwards.
I'm not sure I follow the argument about bad new variants arising especially in immuno-compromised individuals. Let's say that's right, reasonably. Wouldn't the number of those cases still scale approximately with the total number of infections? In that case, the selfish argument would still be correct. Since the people who it might reach probably exist, it seems strange to make a shaky case against it. It's not like it contradicts the argument from basic decency.
I think one part that I find so fascinating is the mental model policymakers have of the populace. They are constantly emphasizing the “it’s for our own good” side of the argument—which is shaky, at best—and rarely appealing to the argument from basic decency. So they clearly assume that either that’s the majority of the populace or they themselves are more moved by that one? So in some sense, whatever works. In another sense, what does this say about how, say, the Beltway/Acela corridor thinks about the population. Not necessarily arguing they are totally wrong but it’s not coming together as a coherent argument either. Something to explore.
I still think the "We're all in this together" theme integrates decency and self-interest in a very natural way. People have been known to show both traits!
Indeed. I’m still finding the interest in a particular type of argument among policy makers to be interesting as a statement about them! 😄
I think this is not about selfishness; it's about how far you (think you) have come with vaccinating your own country.
I'm not sure if it has fully filtered through into American society that the US has enough (non-AZ) jabs for every of its citizens. (In fact I'm keeping up with US news and I only learnt of this from you -- and even then I'm a tad doubtful. You are talking about doses in reserve or doses ordered? Is this sourced from the FDA, the CDC, the companies or the Biden admin?)
As a German, I was somewhat aggravated to read your previous post (for no fault of yours) -- Merkel and various EU officials have started talking of vaccinating developing countries before Germany even had 5% of its doses administered; very few places in the EU are anywhere near the maturity of their vaccine rollout where this kind of discussion has a chance of attracting anything besides irritation among voters. And unlike the US, we don't have a second-choice vaccine that we know for sure we cannot use. If I was in the US and knew that it's just a matter of money, I'd be more sympathetic to sharing around.
Yes I understand. Most Americans had no idea about this surplus—I’ve received so many startled responses—and that’s partially why I wrote this piece: hoping to change the political calculus of sitting on them “just in case”.
I believe that this argument doesn't sufficiently account for how political leaders of countries capable of mass producing vaccines will act. First the national leader will take care of their own countrymen. Next they will take care of their neighbors. After that decisions will get more complicated having to balance the advantages of helping allies with the need to bring the pandemic to an end. As long as a country can produce vaccines, national leaders will want to distribute them, if for no other reason than to obviate the risk what may happen if the virus is allowed to evolve.
Don’t you love when you have an impact - https://apple.news/AnZJxTmgESG-oIwc5uU3VRQ
However it happened, definitely made my day! 😁
I just got my first shot today (Moderna). And, I spoke with someone in London who completed the AstraZeneca shots and is witnessing the political ping pong of "potential bodily backlash" from getting the shot. I had that conversation prior to my getting my shot today...which gave me pause.
Congratulations, though! And yeah, there is a way in which AstraZeneca is now embroiled in many problems, part making of the initial team and part what happened afterwards.