COVAX and COVID‐19 Vaccine Inequity: A case study of G‐20 and African Union

Anjali Pushkaran, V. Chattu, Prakash Narayanan
{"title":"COVAX and COVID‐19 Vaccine Inequity: A case study of G‐20 and African Union","authors":"Anjali Pushkaran, V. Chattu, Prakash Narayanan","doi":"10.1002/puh2.185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the world has a history of vaccine nationalism, especially during the 2009 Swine flu pandemic, the COVAX alliance, a globally collaborated mechanism, was created by World Health Organization (WHO), GAVI, and UNICEF to address the inequity of COVID‐19 vaccines. One of the primary aims of this alliance was to deliver vaccines to low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), which otherwise have less or no capacity to access vaccines from the open market. It is crucial to explore the contribution of COVAX in bridging the gap in equity, accessibility, and affordability of COVID‐19 vaccines between high‐ and low‐income countries (LICs). We selected Group 20 (G20) COVAX participants and the African Union (AU) as case studies to estimate these gaps. The bilateral purchase data shows that by December 2021, the G20 countries had vaccines more than double their population, whereas the AU could procure only about one fifth (19%) of their population. Out of 52 AU countries whose data was available, only 21 of them could strike a bilateral deal with vaccine manufacturers. Even after COVAX delivery, the share of the population that could be vaccinated in AU was just 36.8%, less than the target of WHO (40%) for December 2021. It was found that the COVAX alliance worked better than the open market competition for LMICs and LICs. The cost of vaccinating 20% of the population was 0.7% of the current health expenditure for G20 countries, whereas AU countries had to spend 5.5%. COVAX bears more cost (1%–3%) for AU countries than G20 countries (less than 1%). COVAX made COVID‐19 vaccines more affordable and accessible to these countries. However, LICs were disproportionately affected even with the COVAX Facility mechanism owing to their lack of vaccine deployment infrastructure.","PeriodicalId":74613,"journal":{"name":"Public health challenges","volume":" 45","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public health challenges","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/puh2.185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the world has a history of vaccine nationalism, especially during the 2009 Swine flu pandemic, the COVAX alliance, a globally collaborated mechanism, was created by World Health Organization (WHO), GAVI, and UNICEF to address the inequity of COVID‐19 vaccines. One of the primary aims of this alliance was to deliver vaccines to low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs), which otherwise have less or no capacity to access vaccines from the open market. It is crucial to explore the contribution of COVAX in bridging the gap in equity, accessibility, and affordability of COVID‐19 vaccines between high‐ and low‐income countries (LICs). We selected Group 20 (G20) COVAX participants and the African Union (AU) as case studies to estimate these gaps. The bilateral purchase data shows that by December 2021, the G20 countries had vaccines more than double their population, whereas the AU could procure only about one fifth (19%) of their population. Out of 52 AU countries whose data was available, only 21 of them could strike a bilateral deal with vaccine manufacturers. Even after COVAX delivery, the share of the population that could be vaccinated in AU was just 36.8%, less than the target of WHO (40%) for December 2021. It was found that the COVAX alliance worked better than the open market competition for LMICs and LICs. The cost of vaccinating 20% of the population was 0.7% of the current health expenditure for G20 countries, whereas AU countries had to spend 5.5%. COVAX bears more cost (1%–3%) for AU countries than G20 countries (less than 1%). COVAX made COVID‐19 vaccines more affordable and accessible to these countries. However, LICs were disproportionately affected even with the COVAX Facility mechanism owing to their lack of vaccine deployment infrastructure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
COVAX 和 COVID-19 疫苗不公平:20 国集团和非洲联盟案例研究
由于世界上存在疫苗民族主义的历史,尤其是在 2009 年猪流感大流行期间,世界卫生组织(WHO)、全球疫苗免疫联盟(GAVI)和联合国儿童基金会(UNICEF)创建了 COVAX 联盟这一全球合作机制,以解决 COVID-19 疫苗的不公平问题。该联盟的主要目标之一是向中低收入国家(LMICs)提供疫苗,否则这些国家从公开市场获得疫苗的能力较低或根本没有能力。探讨 COVAX 在缩小高收入国家和低收入国家 (LIC) 之间 COVID-19 疫苗的公平性、可获得性和可负担性方面的差距方面的贡献至关重要。我们选择了 20 国集团 (G20) COVAX 参与国和非洲联盟 (AU) 作为案例研究,以估算这些差距。双边采购数据显示,到 2021 年 12 月,20 国集团国家的疫苗采购量是其人口数量的两倍多,而非盟的采购量仅为其人口数量的五分之一(19%)。在有数据可查的 52 个非盟国家中,只有 21 个国家能与疫苗制造商达成双边协议。即使在提供 COVAX 后,非盟可接种疫苗的人口比例也仅为 36.8%,低于世界卫生组织 2021 年 12 月的目标(40%)。研究发现,对于低收入和中等收入国家以及低收入和中等收入国家而言,COVAX 联盟的效果要好于公开市场竞争。为 20% 的人口接种疫苗的成本占 20 国集团国家当前卫生支出的 0.7%,而非盟国家则需要支出 5.5%。COVAX 为非盟国家带来的成本(1%-3%)高于 20 国集团国家(低于 1%)。COVAX 使这些国家更能负担得起和更容易获得 COVID-19 疫苗。然而,由于缺乏疫苗部署基础设施,即使有 COVAX 基金机制,低收入国家也受到了极大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages Taxation Plan in Indonesia: Call for Political Commitment Prevention and Management of Multimorbidity in Southeast Asia: A Narrative Review Contraceptive Counselling and Uptake Among Female Kidney Transplant Recipients in Ethiopia Dietary Diversity and Nutritional Status Among Rwandan Women Engaged in Agriculture: A Cross‐Sectional Study Improving Sustainable Financing for Universal Health Coverage in Bhutan: Exploring Policy Options and Financial Strategies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1