In other words, it is not an implausible scenario that widespread vaccination plus boosters will do the job of protecting those in wealthy countries (immorally leaving behind everyone else) and also that variants do not arise solely because of unchecked population-level growth.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Agreed. I think it’s a bit too soon to give up on any argument, we will probably need all of them. (Btw, there are other vaccine campaigns rich countries have funded out of self-interest)
- Show replies
-
-
-
I think actually this is not empirically true, the CIA document describing HIV as a security threat changed a lot of people’s footing inside the USG even if that’s not what they said it was about
-
I don’t like it, didn’t at the time, but it was persuasive to several governments
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
A national security/self-interest argument on HIV (though based on a flimsy rationale) was common in the late 90s-early 00s. It did seem to move the needle in speeding some governments' support for global ART access https://mosaicscience.com/story/hiv-international-security/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think it's an astute observation that the HIV argument didn't work even when people thought there was a real biological threat. A question with SARS-CoV-2 is whether the biological threat is in fact greater and will punch us in the nose if the argument doesn't move us.
-
I will admit that I share your doubts that it will move us or that it will punch us in the nose. But then I also don't understand why I should care more about whether someone in Arizona has medical treatment than someone in Mali, and never have.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.