Rich countries getting new COVID vaccine before poorer ones

Why are rich healthy 20 year-olds who don't want any vaccines getting forced to take 3 or 4 against their will when poor 80 year-olds who want a vaccine getting denied?

Where are 20yos "being forced"? The reason why vaccines are going to rich countries is the same reason many other resources do. Rich countries prioritize their own population (and that includes slowing down spreading of COVID on the general population as an effecitve way to protect the most vulnerable)

If the vaccines work as advertised, then the old and vulnerable worldwide should have been prioritized first!

How about antibiotics? do they work? and food? does it helps people achieve proper nutrition? because the same as everything else "if they work as advertised" there are a lot of people in developing countries that need them more but don't get them.

Healthy people in the West who refused to be vaccinated because of this unethical injustice did the right thing.

If they refused by accepting the consequences of not being vaccinated and did not increase the risk for others (for example by isolating) that is fine, else it is just an excuse without merit because they are just choosing to expose themselves and everybody they are in contact to extra risks.

and did not increase the risk for others (for example by isolating

Vaccinated people are also a risk for others!

They can catch the virus, they can get sick and they can spread the virus.

Probably in a lower way, but they can spread it.

(What the reality of all the high cases in countries with a high vaccination rates proves).

But this was already explained thousands of times.

I have no idea when even the last person on earth will understand that.

So your argue of self isolation to be not a risk for others counts for the unvaccinated and the vaccinated people.

Why does a person who does not have Covid need to isolate?

Do you understand the concept of risk?

Of course daily tests by the gold standard (in this case PCR) to demonstrate not being infected is also a way to demonstrate not to be increasing the risk for others, are you saying those refusing vaccines are paying for those tests themselves and be in contact with other people only after getting a negative result?

Vaccinated people are also a risk for others!

A lower risk, which is the main point.

I mean, it is terribly easy to understand how people willingly choosing to become a higher risk for others can be made to have consequences about it.

So your argue of self isolation to be not a risk for others counts for the unvaccinated and the vaccinated people.

Read the comment you are replying to, it explicitly says that they do not become a higher risk for others, you can't just ignore the part of the comment that makes your own irrelevant.

Why do the rich drive better cars than the poor?

Yeah, that is the way the cookies crumbles.

Who said life is fair. Quite the contrary.

Everyone wants economic equality until that equality means it is you that has to give to balance the scales.

"Rich countries getting new COVID vaccine before poorer ones"

In related news, the sky is still blue and water is still wet...

When do 'poorer' countries EVER enjoy a benefit (if it be so) before richer ones? And, while there is news of COVID in the U.S., of course, China, the EU, et alia, I do not see much about all the rest of the world (e.g. Africa). Have they, after all of this time, reached the fabled 'herd immunity'? And if these vaccines are the same-oh same-oh antigens, the reason that Omicron became such a quick spreader was because the vaccinated people were ideal symptomless CARRIERS of the new version. And constant testing other than for special occasions such as border entry or symptom appearance seems a bit problematic because, while one may not be infected today according to the test, tomorrow is another day...and, in any case, COVID is a perfect candidate to become endemic and begin orbiting the earth as H1N1 (1918) flu has in its targets until such time as we actually understand both viruses and the Human immune system beyond the clearly primitive knowledge we have today, particularly of the immune system which is the usual proximal cause of death in virus infections (see: Sepsis) . We've only been aware of viruses for a short time after the RUSSIAN, Dmitri Ivanovsky, pointed out their existence in 1892 and it took medicine another 20-30 years to take them seriously. That's just yesterday as these things go. Think back to 1922 and that's what we'll look like in 2122 and half of what we believe and the 'experts' preach today will be forgotten.

the U.N.-backed effort to supply poorer countries, a sign that inequity persists in the global response to the pandemic.

The U.N. is responsible.

virusrexToday  09:01 am JST

If they refused by accepting the consequences of not being vaccinated and did not increase the risk for others (for example by isolating) that is fine, 

If they were isolating, what would the consequences be? In China, with its zero covid policy, the country had the lowest rate of covid infections and the lowest rate of covid related deaths, in the world. Sound like good consequences.

virusrexToday  10:59 am JST

I mean, it is terribly easy to understand how people willingly choosing to become a higher risk for others can be made to have consequences about it.

Do you understand the meaning of consequences? How does one choose to become a higher risk? Buy getting 3 vaccine shots and then subjecting themselves to conditions where they believe they are immune from catching Covid?　　How has that worked out?

As usual, you provide no evidence, no expert opinions, and no scientific date to back up your fanciful claims.

If they were isolating, what would the consequences be? 

If you read the comment the consequences are about NOT isolating.

 China, with its zero covid policy, the country had the lowest rate of covid infections and the lowest rate of covid related deaths, in the world. Sound like good consequences.

Except for the fact that this approach is unsustainable (as you proved by failing to present any expert that supported this approach) and have already shown to fail as it did on Hong Kong, The real scientific approach is based on controlled spreading by vaccination and other measures without ever depending on having zero cases.

Do you understand the meaning of consequences? How does one choose to become a higher risk?

That is terribly easy to understand, in both examples. One course of action leads to higher risk, and by this time people have no excuse to say they do not understand this. The same as a driver that do not want to recognize he is impaired when drunk.

Buy getting 3 vaccine shots and then subjecting themselves to conditions where they believe they are immune from catching Covid?

Fortunately most people do understand what immunity means in medicine so they do not share your misconception.

Now, what evidence do you need? I have already proved to you that countries use measures (like masks) without a zero covid policy, that Hong Kong is an example of China failing their policy and that New Zealand successfully abandoned it when it became unsustainable and it is the actual approach being praised by the experts (not China).

virusrexToday  02:04 pm JST

If you read the comment the consequences are about NOT isolating.

If you read my comment the consequences ARE about isolating.

Except for the fact that this approach is unsustainable (as you proved by failing to present any expert that supported this approach) and have already shown to fail as it did on Hong Kong, The real scientific approach is based on controlled spreading by vaccination and other measures without ever depending on having zero cases.

It's been sustainable for two years and the outcome has been better than in any other country in the world, based on scientific evidence, and expert opinions.

That is terribly easy to understand, in both examples.

Then how come you don't understand it?

Fortunately most people do understand what immunity means in medicine so they do not share your misconception. 

Is it a misconception that people who have received 3 shots still catch Omicron? Do you have any scientific evidence to prove that has not happened?

Now, what evidence do you need?

Evidence other than what comes off the top of your head.

I have already proved to you that countries use measures (like masks) without a zero covid policy,

Nope.

that Hong Kong is an example of China failing their policy and that New Zealand successfully abandoned it when it became unsustainable and it is the actual approach being praised by the experts (not China).

Hong Kong is an example of Hong Kong failing its policy. If you cannot see the simple logical distinction--well, I guess readers here are used to it.

yeah, and rich people have Porsches, swimming pools, champagne and caviar, and.....

Putting this throwaway line aside, "More than 680 million doses of COVAX-provided vaccines remain unused or have expired,", the article doesn't appear to address demand in these poorer countries.

Are the largely much younger populations lining up for vaccines or is this a "we have to do a better job of telling everyone why they need this and hope (or mandate) that they do"?

Having vaccines and people taking them are two different problems, don't try to solve one without knowing the other.

If you read my comment the consequences ARE about isolating.

And you are replying (and asking) about a comment where the consequences are about not isolating, if you organize your thoughts better you will not get as confused.

It's been sustainable for two years and the outcome has been better than in any other country in the world, based on scientific evidence, and expert opinions.

That is false, it not only failed spectacularly in Hong Kong, but the experts have repeatedly said this approach is a blackhole of resources that can cost lives by mking public services worse al around. Expert opinions only you can see, and that you can never bring can be safely ignored.

Then how come you don't understand it?

I did, which is why it can be easily explained in the comment, people to refuse to accept this are the ones that demonstrate lack of understanding.

Evidence other than what comes off the top of your head.

About nothing in particular? all the examples I gave are perfectly valid and have demonstrated without problems something you did not want to believe.

Hong Kong is an example of Hong Kong failing its policy

This may be news but Hong Kong is in China, following Chinese policies with Chinese resources, and they all failed completely, Hong Kong failure is a demonstration of China's zero covid policy failure, even if you don't want to accept it. New Zealand on the opposite demonstrated a much better approach by abandoning an impossible strategy towards a much more efficient one according to the experts.

virusrexMar. 26  07:29 pm JST

And you are replying (and asking) about a comment where the consequences are about not isolating, if you organize your thoughts better you will not get as confused.

You are commenting on your comments. Great organization!

That is false, it not only failed spectacularly in Hong Kong, but the experts have repeatedly said this approach is a blackhole of resources that can cost lives by mking public services worse al around. Expert opinions only you can see, and that you can never bring can be safely ignored.

Actually, the experts have shown otherwise.

I did, which is why it can be easily explained in the comment, people to refuse to accept this are the ones that demonstrate lack of understanding.

I see--everyone is wrong except you!

About nothing in particular? all the examples I gave are perfectly valid and have demonstrated without problems something you did not want to believe.

Perfectly valid based on your own thought up evidence. That was easy!

This may be news but Hong Kong is in China, following Chinese policies with Chinese resources, and they all failed completely, Hong Kong failure is a demonstration of China's zero covid policy failure, even if you don't want to accept it. New Zealand on the opposite demonstrated a much better approach by abandoning an impossible strategy towards a much more efficient one according to the experts.

Oh, so first you argue how different Hong Kong and China are, and now suddenly they are the same. Ok, next time I visit Hong Kong I will need to get a visa first like I do when I visit China, right?

You are commenting on your comments. Great organization!

No, I am commenting on an invalid comment you did about it, which made you apparently confused thinking your comment was the original one, it is not.

Actually, the experts have shown otherwise

Then again, those "experts" are invisible for anybody but you which means they are not a valid reference, calling your personal opinion "experts" is not valid, and that is why you have been completley unable to show it.

I see--everyone is wrong except you!

No, but if I can explain why someone is wrong then making no defense of that wrong opinion means the person is accepting he was wrong.

Oh, so first you argue how different Hong Kong and China are, and now suddenly they are the same.

Where have I argued that Honk Kong and China are different? can you provide a source? Which policy was used in Hong Kong? the Chinese zero covid, which whose resources and organization? the Chinese one again. Sorry if you don't want to recognize that Hong Kong is under control of the Chinese government and have to do as they are instructed, but that is reality. The failure that the policy had in Hong Kong is all on the Chinese government that forced it, and that is simply something nobody can deny.