Introduction

Scholars have debated on the nuances of haranguing over resources for long, for some have considered it to be a means to security, while others have stretched out towards global domination. However, most are of the opinion that not only does it entails power projection but cements the position of a state in the global arena. While the inter-war period1 witnessed European states in a power projection spree, the Cold War and the Post-Cold War period witnessed various newer means of resource hoarding and domination. With the raging pandemic the wealthier nations, prime in their vaccine innovation have already taken the lead in addition to stocking up on raw materials and supplies leaving the poorer nations in the lurch. While India, the PRC and Russia did step in and so did the Covax alliance little has been done. India’s second wave dashed all hopes for a rescue, and the PRC’s diabolical game and wolfish nature is a cause for concern. It is understood that unless there is an ethical redistribution of vaccines, a vigorous vaccination drive globally there may be no economic recovery and restoration of normalcy. Such pathetic attitude by the harbingers of democracy would only lend a hand to the PRC which is the source of the pandemic and cast aspersions on Western democracies.

How a Pandemic caught the world unguarded

Public health policies vary according to the capacities and policy framing of the states with the gap between those who boast of an affordable and universal healthcare and those who struggle for basic medical facilities widening as time passes (Fosse, 2011) (Koch, 1998). While the Scandinavian states such as Norway, Finland, Sweden to name a few would be a model to pursue (Dahl & Lie, 511: 2009), others in the tropics struggle with seasonal diseases and deadly pathogens that compel states to look for temporary solutions. Like a vicious cycle most of these poor performing states are generally unprepared to handle crises of a gargantuan proportion. In short, public health discrepancy, ill-framed policies and the lack of R&D1 coupled with political and financial passiveness form the perfect cocktail for a super health disaster (Phadke, 2011) (Christiansen, 89: 2017).

Developing economies, especially are caught in the conundrum in terms of framing public health policies. Lack of infrastructure can be supplemented with increased public spending which again amounts to increasing debt (without the possibility to service off debts regularly), while privatisation may offer some relief albeit with higher costs that would leave out those who may not be able to afford such services out of the ambit (Mooney, 2012) (Chapman, 2014). Hence, coined as a grand conundrum, developing states are still in the throes of ironing out persistent issues without much solutions in sight. In this context the question of technology transfer and ‘aid’ comes into the framework. Would developed states be willing to offer such technological prowess without any cost to the developing states, or would profiteering take a primacy over public health? This debate is interesting to observe as there is a sharp divide between those who propose that health takes primacy over profiteering and those who offer more value to R&D (Chapman, 2020) (Brekke & Kverndokk, 2012). Surely, the sheer amount of investment required to come up with instruments of health ranging from vaccines to medicines and other medical equipment cannot be compensated on the grounds of aiding the underprivileged states, again on the other hand the mere fact that the majority of the earth’s population would be left out without access to such instruments reeks of a skewed sense of priorities.

After discussing some of these issues plaguing the scenario of health worldwide, the global pandemic caused by the Wuhan virus has drawn out the schism in terms of preparedness, response and solution varying among states. It has also exhibited how the PRC1 has managed to so far remain unscathed despite its blatant involvement in the origin of the Wuhan virus and the subsequent fallout. By the end of December 2019, rumours became confirmed news that there was a new virus outbreak in the PRC and globally mounting pressure on Beijing let out filtered news (Chakrabarty. 2021). Complacent, the leaders of the world did not pursue the incidents on a more pressing note allowing the PRC to activate its propaganda machinery, hoodwink the WHO1 which by the means of a tweet1 added more to the complacency (Givas, 2020). By the time the infection had become really serious and many states had experienced their first few cases, it was only on the 11th of March 2020 that the WHO finally declared it a pandemic which caused not only panic never witnessed before, but forced states into an overdrive to deal with a virus about which information was lacking. Beijing’s sketchy information, hyper-narratives and clamping down on public discussion did not offer respite in the situation, waves of lockdowns and restrictions were emergency measures to stem the spread of infection. As the world leaders held a series of discussion along with the WHO, information ‘trickled’ out of the PRC regarding the nature of the pathogen (WION. 2020). Unfortunately, the panic caused by the onset of the pandemic added more fuel to the fire.

With the first few months seeing waves of infection, squalor, death and a complete decimation of the international economy a raging question comes up, that of preparedness in terms of an economic cushioning and medical alertness.

The Race for the Wuhan virus vaccines

The initial response from the international community was not only on an emergency basis, but also exposed the soft underbelly of the developed nations with famed health infrastructures. It also exhibited how inadequate were the preparations of those states that are woefully short of funds and effective planning. A glimmer of hope arose as scientists all over the world raced to find a proper vaccine and a cure (WHO. 2021). Faced with unprecedented challenges and with the entire global health system on the verge of a collapse, the international scientific community realised that the only way to prevent more damage was to create an efficient vaccine. It would however be a mistake to only discuss the vaccine development as a response to the recent pandemic originating in Wuhan, indeed the previous SARS epidemic that swept across the PRC and some Southeast Asian states in 2003 (The Guardian, 2003) was the initial impetus for a robust vaccine development programme. Since the Wuhan virus is almost similar to its predecessor1 scientists believed that by following the same pattern of vaccine development which includes the study of the viral protein and gene, identification of a proper and effective antigen, the route required for immunisation , animal response study, immune response study, clinical trials and the most dangerous- the human trials. The methodology taken by the scientists also determine the time frame required to develop vaccines which may take anywhere from a couple of years to a longer period. Scientists also realised that rushing through the entire procedure would be fraught with miscalculations and risks. Under these pressing circumstances, they focussed on three ways of developing vaccines which included a first generation (live attenuated and inactivated vaccine), second generation (protein subunit and vector base vaccine) and the third generation (nucleic acid and nano-material based vaccine) (Badgujar, 2020). The WHO in an informative article explained the process of development of vaccines, the ratio of success is quite low as only 7 out of 100 candidates will found deemed to move on to the next phase, out of which just 1 in 5 will be considered fit enough to move on to the phase of clinical trials. This feature exhibits that since the ratio of success is quite low, the race for finding a proper vaccine becomes even more cumbersome (WHO. 2021).

Ball (2020) states that apart from funding and other logistical issues, clinical trials especially under such pressing circumstances is another issue that needs to be discussed. The sheer ferocity and unavailability of raw data related to the Wuhan virus ensured that vaccine researchers needed to hasten their approaches while risking efficacy. The methodology applied was similar to the creation of other vaccines that involves the use of dead viruses and mimicking a response associated with previous vaccines. The article exhibits that developing a vaccine with a high efficacy is not a cakewalk and for instance back in the 1880s typhoid was linked to its pathogen but the vaccine was licenced only in the 1980s. Notable early successes were noticed in the case of Polio, Mumps, Measles and Hepatitis B. In this regard the Pfizer, BioNTech and the AstraZeneca showed considerable progress (Sharma, 2020). Amazingly enough, Russia announced its Sputnik V vaccine in August 2020 despite critics questioning the mode and efficacy (Akst. 2020; CDC. 2021). By October 2020 India too had begun its vaccine trials under the guidance of the ICMR1 and Bharat Biotech. Additionally the SII1 , Cadilla Healthcare Ltd and the Hetero Bio Pharma joined in the research process. India thus managed to develop the Covaxin and the Covishield and also embarked on a mass vaccination drive.

In another series of events, research brought out mixed results in which studies showed that common asthma medication could stave off a serious illness caused by the Wuhan virus, while others showed that a common cold antibodies offer miniscule protection against the dreaded virus (Nature, 2021). As of now 185 vaccines around the world are undergoing pre-clinical trials on a rudimentary basis, but in a sharp contrast only 35 vaccines are undergoing phase 1 trials, 37 in phase 2, 25 in phase 3, 16 are in use and 5 vaccines are being monitored for use for a wider range of the global population (Gavi, 2021).

In this regard the WHO in February 2021 commented that the vast majority of the vaccines administered1 is limited to 10 states, whereas around 130 states are still waiting for their turn to get vaccinated (WHO, 2021). To end this section, it will be useful to examine the entire process till the vaccine roll-out and administering them to the general population. A lot depends on the economy of the states, the level of scientific R&D, and collaboration with other states. Notably three factors play a key role, the economy of the states, the vaccine equity and communication and trust. Around 50 to 75 percent of the entire global population needs to be vaccinated to prevent further outbreaks. In this regard four stages are required to be followed for a stronger response which begins with research, discovery and development of vaccines, moving on to mass production, transportation and reverse logistics (OECD, 2021). The question inevitably arises here, how will the world ensure effective, affordable and equitable vaccination in the light of power asymmetries?

Contentions over vaccine disparity

The Wuhan virus vaccines have now become a much coveted object in the world, with states vying for control over it. Already there are tensions as to how the global vaccination programme may be directed so that no state may be left out. Added to it the notion of patents emerge which has its own merits in sharp contrast to the notion of global distribution of the vaccines on the lines of people over profits. In this context a power struggle has also emerged between India and the PRC, and the western nations and the PRC and Russia. To offer a brief overview, 23.1 percent of the world’s population has been vaccinated with at least one dose, in contrast only 0.9 percent in lower income states have received the same. Leading the charts are the United States, India, Brazil, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy and other European nations. Notably, India, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Israel and Argentina are few exceptions that lie outside the purview of privileged powers (OWD, 2021). The UN in a report claims that vaccine equity is critical for an economic recovery, failing to engage in which may cause many years of economic losses (UN, 2021). While 90 percent of the vaccines produced by the wealthy nations have already been administered nationally, it has left out the remaining population of the world (Mona, 2021). Sounding alarm bells, the WHO director Dr. Tedros questioned the vaccine disparity. Commenting on it he said that prolonged vaccine disparity could slow down the recovery process causing further infections and lockdowns which would hurt the economy and progress. Even though under the Covax alliance, the initial plan was to deliver two billion doses to 190 countries so far only 38 million doses have been delivered to 100 countries (BBC. 2021).

Of course vaccine disparity has been linked to vaccine nationalism and even wealthier states are facing the brunt. Take for instance the position of Australia which is still dependent on supplies from abroad and complained that Astrazeneca is not able to live up to its obligations in addition to supplies being blocked by the EU (BBC, 2021). Sounding a similar tone, newly elected WTO chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala said that vaccine nationalism and protectionism by the means of which certain states block supplies or are more concerned about intellectual property rights could cause slowing down the pace of vaccinations, and unless every state has been vaccinated properly there would be no recovery (Josephs. 2021). While health experts have repeatedly warned that unless a complete immunisation is done with respect to all the states in the world, the dreams of a recovery is distant. While richer nations have already pre-booked their shots and while 45 percent of the global vaccines have been administered to just 16 percent of the global population, around 92 countries will not be able to reach their effective target of vaccinating at least 60 percent of their population by late 2023 (Kretchmer, 2021). This shocking disparity leaves out most of the countries, and with new mutations on the rise there is no end to the pandemic that originated in Wuhan. Figuring out this sharp contrast, while 54 percent of the global doses have been bought by the wealthier nations, only 3 percent of such doses have fallen into the hands of its diametric opposite, additionally higher income states could possibly vaccinate their population twice whereas the lower incomes states may cover one a third.

On a concluding note

Although India jumped into the fray in providing free vaccines to many states (MEA, 2021) under its Vaccine Maitri scheme, domestic concerns and a raging second wave put a halt to such a noble operation. While western nations have jealously guarded their vaccine stocks, including patent rights citing IPR clauses, the PRC has stepped in to fill up the void, at the cost of lack of transparency, ineffective vaccines and shrouded deaths post vaccination. Beijing, expert in a propaganda warfare has scared off the global population regarding vaccinations, while it has preyed on their hapless situation by promoting its own vaccines. Mere questioning and deriding the faulty Chinese vaccines in addition to pressurising Beijing to owe up to its fault will not help, unless the Western democracies step up efforts to aid their unfortunate counterparts. At this juncture, as the world clamours for making the PRC accountable such lackadaisical actions on the part of the wealthier western nations will only enable a stronger foothold for the PRC- the epicentre of the Wuhan virus.

References

• Akst, J. (2020, August 11). Russia approves world's first Coronavirus vaccine. Retrieved June 16, 2021, from The Scientist:ttps://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/russia-approvesworlds-first-coronavirus-vaccine-67810
• Badgujar, et. al.(2020). Vaccine Development against Coronavirus (2003 to present): An overview, recent advances, current scenario,opportuities and challenges. Diabetes Metab Syndrome, 14(5), 1361-1376.
• Ball, P. (2020, Devember 18). The Lightning-Fast quest for COVID Vaccines -and what it means for other diseases. Retrieved June 16, 2021, from nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03626-1
• BBC. (2021, April 10). Coronavirus: WHO chief criticises 'shocking' global vaccine divide. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-56698854
• BBC. (2021, March 5). Disappointment over Covid vaccine nationalism. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-australia-56293232
• Brekke, K. &. Snorre, K. (2012). Inadequate Bivariate Measures of Health Inequility: The Impact of Income Distribution. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 114(2), 323-333.
• CDC. (2021, May 27). Different Covid-19 Vaccines. Retrieved June 16, 2021, from Centers for Disease Control: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/differentvaccines.htm
• Chakrabarty, A. (2021, May 28). A Failed Putsch- How the PRC’S Makeover Blitz is Dysfunctional. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from Forum for Integrated National Security: https://finsindia.org/a-failed-putsch-how-the-prcs-makeover-blitz-is-dysfunctional/
• Chakrabarty, A. (2021, March 22). India's Vaccine Diplomacy- Ethical Reassurance. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from The Diplomatist: https://diplomatist.com/2021/03/22/indias-vaccinediplomacy-ethical-reassurance/
• Chapman, A. (2014). The Impat of Reliance on Private Sector Health Services on the Right to Health. Health and Human Rights, 16(1), 122-134.
• Chapman, A. (2020). The Right to Health. Health and Human Rights, 22(1), 331-334.
• Christiansen, I. (2017). Commodification of Healthcare and its Consequences. World Review of Political Economy, 8(1), 82-103.
• Dahl, E. &. Lie, M. (2009). Policies to tackle Health Inequalities in Norway: From Laggard to Pioneer? International Journal of Health Services, 39(3), 509-523.
• Fosse, E. (2011). Different Welfare States- Different Policies? An Analysis of the Substance of National Health Promotion Policies in Three European Countries. International Journal of Health Services, 41(2), 255-272.
• GAVI. (2021, June 16). The COVID-19 Vaccine Race- weekly update. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from GAVI, the vaccine allaince: https://www.gavi.org/sites/default/files/covid/covid-19- vaccines-development-phases.png
• Givas, N. (2020, March 20). WHO haunted by old tweet saying China found no human transmission of coronavirus. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from New York Post: https://nypost.com/2020/03/20/who-haunted-by-old-tweet-saying-china-found-no-humantransmission-of-coronavirus/
• Guardian, The. (2003, April 9). China accused of Sars cover-up. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/09/sars.china
• Josephs, J. (2021, February 16). New WTO boss warns against vaccine nationalism. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from BBC News: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56079088
• Koch, J. (1998). Political Rhetoric and Political Persuasion: The Changing Structure of Citizens' Preference on Health Insurance During Policy Debate. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(2), 209- 229.
• Kretchmer, H. (2021, January 6). Vaccine nationalism – and how it could affect us all. Retrieved June 27, 2021, from World Economic Forum: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/what-is-vaccine-nationalism-coronavirus-itsaffects-covid-19-pandemic
• MEA. (2021, May 29). COVID-19 Updates: Vaccine Supply. Retrieved June 27, 2021, from Ministry of External Affairs: Government of India: https://www.mea.gov.in/vaccinesupply.htm
• Mirza, A. &. Rauhala, E. (2021, May 6). Here’s just how unequal the global Coronavirus vaccine rollout has been. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from The Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2021/coronavirus-vaccine-inequalityglobal/
• Mona. (2021, June 4). Covid-19 vaccine inequity amidst a global shortage: A comparative look at India. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from Observer Research Foundation: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/covid-19-vaccine-inequity-amidst-a-global-shortagea-comparative-look-at-india/
• Mooney, G. (2012). Neoliberalism is Bad for our Health. International Journal of Health Services, 42(3), 383-401.
• Nature. (2021, May 05). COVID research: a year of scientific milestones. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w
• OECD. (2021, May 8). OECD. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from The Race to Vaccinate: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/vaccines
• OWD. (2021, June 23). Coronavirus (Covid 19) in Vaccinations. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from Our World in Data: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
• Phadke, A. (2011). Planning Healthcare for All? Economic and Political Weekly, 46(21), 15-18.
• Rouw, et. al.(2021, March 17). Global COVID-19 Vaccine Access: A Snapshot of Inequality. Retrieved June 26, 2021, from KFF: Kaiser Family Foundation: https://www.kff.org/policywatch/global-covid-19-vaccine-access-snapshot-of-inequality/
• Sharma, M. (2020, December 12). World's 1st Covid-19 vaccine approved, UK first country to give nod to Pfizer & BioNTech candidate. Retrieved June 15, 2021, from Business Today: https://www.businesstoday.in/coronavirus/breaking-uk-becomes-first-country-to-approvepfizerbiontech-vaccine-for-mass-use/story/423636.html
• UN. (2021, May 11). Vaccine equity posing 'significant risk' to global economic recovery. Retrieved June 23, 2021, from UNITED NATIONS: UN News: https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/05/1091732
• Wang, Y. (2021, March 4). China’s Dangerous Game Around Covid-19 Vaccines. Retrieved June 28, 2021, from Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/04/chinasdangerous-game-around-covid-19-vaccin
• WHO. (2021, February 10). In the COVID-19 vaccine race, we either win together or lose together. Retrieved June 22, 2021, from World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/news/item/10-02-2021-in-the-covid-19-vaccine-race-we-either-win-together-or-lose-together
• WHO. (2021, January 12). The different types of COVID-19 vaccines. Retrieved June 21, 2021, from World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/therace-for-a-covid-19-vaccine-explained
• WION. (2020, Deember 1). Leaked documents show China bluntly lied about Covid-19 and mishandled early pandemic. Retrieved June 27, 2021, from WION: https://www.wionews.com/world/leaked-documents-show-china-bluntly-lied-about-covid-19-andmishandled-early-pandemic-346590