It seems that everyone wants to vaccinate 100% of the people in the UK so Britons can feel safe, AND ONLY THEN, send surplus UK vaccines to developing nations to help them beat COVID-19. Which sounds reasonable on the face of it. After all, why should Britons risk thousands more deaths in the country in order to help others who live oceans away from the UK?
However, this is a false narrative and any epidemiologist worth their salt will tell you so…
By Vaccinating Only 64% of a Given Population, You Effectively Prevent Re-Transmission of the Virus
Yes, it’s a fact. If you live in the UK, Australia, or Canada (for three easy examples) and your healthcare system has vaccinated 64% of the population against a virus, they’ve effectively beaten that virus. Forever!
“How can that be?” you ask.
It’s because the remaining 36% of the population AREN’T riding in the same elevator. Obviously.
Further, within that 36% group, responsible adults these days are wearing a face mask and washing their hands frequently.
Additionally, many people in that 36% cohort have already had the virus — either knowingly or asymptomatically — therefore, they can neither catch COVID-19 nor pass it on to other people. That’s important to know. Which may turn out to be the best immunity of all, because that’s how nature has been saving us from pathogens for millennia and the proof it works is that there’s now 7.8 billion of us on planet Earth.
Of course, this assumes that entry to the UK is restricted to those who’ve either had the virus or received a vaccination — in either case, they aren’t able to re-transmit the Coronavirus to Britons.
However, EVEN IF the borders were thrown wide open, once you’ve vaccinated 64% of the population in the country it’s almost impossible for the re-transmission of COVID-19 to occur because many of the non-vaccinated 36% of Britons will have already had the disease (making it impossible for them to either catch or re-transmit COVID-19) or will be wearing masks and washing their hands frequently (making it almost impossible for them to either catch or re-transmit COVID-19) or those Britons will never come into close contact with visitors from another country (who WON’T have COVID-19 because they were properly screened before they boarded an aircraft to carry them to the UK)
Ergo, the chances of Coronavirus-infected visitors to the UK infecting Britons with COVID-19 are almost nil once 64% of Britons have been vaccinated.
Why Doesn’t the NHS Vaccinate 64% of Britons & Then Send the Surplus Vaccine to Developing Nations?
So obviously, that’s the thing to do!
Once the UK hits the magic number of 64% of Britons vaccinated — and with continued screening at the country’s borders for potentially infected visitors, and with proper mask-wearing and proper hand-washing for Britons, there’s no reason for ‘lockdown’ to continue, for closed ports of entry to the UK, or for quarantining of visitors to the UK — the rest of the UK vaccine supply can then be re-routed to developing nations that are members of the Commonwealth of Nations.
In that way, next year’s UK farm workers (many of whom hail from Commonwealth nations) will have been vaccinated courtesy of UK Foreign Aid, thereby helping to keep the UK’s food production safe and able to meet demand uninterrupted throughout the UK’s extended harvest season.
By making surplus vaccines available to those developing Commonwealth nations, the UK protects its home-grown food production and can credit the value of those vaccines against the UK Aid budget as a payment-in-kind, thereby helping to maintain the UK’s committent to spend .7% of its GDP on foreign aid.
And that’s the way it’s done people! Stick with science AND help developing nations to vaccinate their people — some of whom will be picking your fruit and veg in the coming months. Think about it…
Written by John Brian Shannon
- Vaccine optimization for COVID-19: Who to vaccinate first? (ScienceMag.org)
I’m tempted to say straight off that what goes on in Myanmar (formerly Burma) is entirely the business of the Burmese people and that other countries don’t have any business interfering in the affairs of a sovereign country. And that’s fine, as far as it goes.
But there’s a shared responsibility that the world’s leaders have to the world’s citizens, which is the responsibility to ensure that what we call ‘normal civil rights’ are preserved regardless of which government or junta is in power.
Normally, this is expressed through the august offices of the United Nations, first by the UN Security Council (in emergency situations) and later, by the UN General Assembly.
In the case of Myanmar, the UN Security Council has barely commented, and the UN General Assembly hasn’t yet discussed the plight of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the deposed, or partially deposed leader of that country — who, it must be said, barely ‘ruled’ the country in the first place, and that, only with the tepid approval of the powerful Burmese military.
Was she the leader at all, one wonders? Or was it all a pantomime to placate democrats around the world concerned about the purity of democratic process everywhere, and in particular, Myanmar?
I think it was the latter, because as soon as Aung San Suu Kyi began to implement democratic reforms she found herself under house arrest along with some of her government ministers charged with spurious offences. An utterly predictable outcome.
If you didn’t see this coming years ago, either you’re not an astute observer of international politics or you’re incredibly naive.
The Burmese Regime Has Been Preparing for This Moment for Decades
Obviously, it’s been the plan all along: Placate world leaders by installing a weak president bereft of any real power; arrest the president if he or she decides to implement real democratic reforms; and then get ready to repel invasion by international ‘do-gooder’ nations, and then, via the use of pre-placed terrorist operatives around the world, destroy their attackers from within, to ‘teach them a lesson’ about ‘messing with Myanmar’. Anything is possible in war they say.
Which isn’t a bad way for a country to make a name for itself and a good way for a large number of extremely wealthy Burmese generals to enhance and extend their grip on power. Totally logical. Efficient.
And likely to succeed on account of the extended preparation time that Myanmar’s military has enjoyed courtesy of a global order busy with postwar rebuilding, the Cold War, and various wars and economic crises in the postwar era. And during the entire time, Myanmar was at the bottom of the international ‘To Do’ list.
As I said, anyone could’ve seen it coming.
The Moral (and Tempting) Choice is for World Leaders to want to ‘Bring Myanmar to Heel’
But how is that possible without getting Aung San Suu Kyi killed, or worse?
And how is it possible for the world to quickly create a powerful military coalition to enforce change in Myanmar — without hundreds or even thousands of military casualties courtesy of the Burmese military which has been spoiling for this fight for generations and now seems ready to engage and fight this battle on their own carefully prepared turf…
It’s a fight that the existing order is wholly unprepared for and one they could actually lose.
No one thought that North Korea could fight to a draw, a robust America nearing the peak of its power in 1950-53.
No one thought that France could lose the war in French Indochina (Vietnam).
No one thought that the USA (at the peak of its power, 1962-1975) and acting in concert with some of its allies, could lose the Vietnam War.
No one thought that the Cold War would end in a stalemate, irreparably damaging the economy of the former Soviet Union and driving American debt to a sky-high 82% of GDP. Generations from now, American citizens will still be paying the debt on the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, the Iraq War, the Afghan War, and countless brushfire wars, skirmishes, and ‘economic competition’.
No one thought that a single city (Mogadishu) could send the US Marines home damaged — not having ‘won’ their objective but not having ‘lost’ their objective either. And that was just one city.
And after all the billions spent to protect and defend American citizens, even the USA can barely protect itself from a tiny COVID-19 virus.
Myanmar’s military too, has been on an equipment spending spree for decades and it employs among the most sophisticated weaponry available in the world, its troops are trained to a very high standard, and Burmese generals seem to have no concern about losing thousands of their own citizens in civil war or international conflict. The fewer mouths to feed, the better. Unless they’re old enough to carry a rifle, that is…
It might be difficult for some to realize this, but the world has changed, and not just a little. The US, if it acted alone against the Burmese military in Myanmar, could lose that fight. Think about that for a minute. Think about how that would change the world.
What kind of world will we live in if upstarts like Myanmar can beat the mighty United States military and its allies (within Myanmar) and concomitantly wreak widespread (terrorist) destruction across America during and long after a war between the US allied group and Myanmar?
The world has changed people! Think about what you want to do, before you commit your country to a plan of action.
It’s Not What the Burmese Generals Know That Will Bite Them – It’s What they Don’t Know That Will Bite Them
Although the military junta has created a large and lethal army to protect their operation, there are other ways to get the citizens of Myanmar what they want and get what we want for Myanmar’s people. Peace and prosperity, along with civil rights.
One: Give the junta everything they want. Eventually, financial excess, unlimited political power and infighting will have the Burmese army consuming itself until there’s nothing left and then legitimate politicians can return to power and never again be challenged by their military after that negative experience.
Two: Cut off any travel by air or sea (only) to and from Myanmar. (A no-fly and no-sail zone along Myanmar’s entire coastline) Yes, plenty of trade could still be done via Myanmar’s land borders and this plan might merely inconvenience the ruling junta.
However, if they challenged America and it’s allies at sea, the junta would lose badly because naval power and air power happen to be Myanmar’s weakness. They have no real air force other than the latest-missile-equipped spotter-type aircraft and they have no real Navy other than small coastal patrol craft that are capable of sinking drug-runner boats. It must be emphasized again that Myanmar has a large and formidable (land-based) army, representing a huge capability for them.
So, when you go to war, you always want to fight the enemy on your own terms, doing that which your own side does best. You never want to fight the enemy on their strengths as that will dramatically increase your own casualty rate and the casualty rate of the civilians you’re trying to protect.
But cutting off air and sea access to Myanmar’s Bay of Bengal ocean frontage would embarrass the junta and let the citizens of Myanmar know that their plight has been heard and is being acted upon by a coalition of nations. (Hopefully, acted upon by all other nations)
And eventually, with enough billions of coalition dollars and enough coalition casualties, they would beat-down the junta enough that they would allow President Aung San Suu Kyi to rule Myanmar again. Unhindered this time.
Three: A long process; But so-called ‘Soft Power’ — employing diplomacy to work with the ruling junta to help it gain the same respect, maturity, and perspective that developed countries enjoy and employ to attain their goals — would work to raise the level of discourse among the generals that presently rule Myanmar. And this is what should’ve been happening all along, throughout the Cold War and especially since the end of that incredibly destructive (and wholly unnecessary) conflict.
Bringing Myanmar’s generals up to the same governance standards as the rest of the world is, by far, the best way to ensure peace, security, and prosperity for Myanmar and other countries in the region.
Helping Myanmar’s junta to become part of Myanmar’s solution instead of part of its own problem is the way to proceed.
Time for a Tony Benn quote: “All war, represents a failure of diplomacy.”
Let’s Plan Ahead and Get the Result We Want
Who doesn’t like peace and prosperity?
Who doesn’t like watching their hopes and dreams come true every day?
Everyone likes these things, and for good reason, they are the pathways that lead to happy and fulfilling lives for citizens and those things allow the robust economics that produce the reliable revenues that politicians need to deliver high quality government services to their citizens year in and year out.
So, let’s continue to plan for that in our own countries, and in the case of countries like Myanmar where governance is clearly still a work-in-progress, let’s help them plan for the same outcomes in their country by giving them the information and training they lack — thereby allowing their country to succeed — instead of them becoming yet another nightmare, another failed state that we all wind up paying for in blood and treasure.
Either this generation of world leaders are up to that task, or they aren’t. And if they aren’t, they haven’t learned from past mistakes and we’ll soon be at some kind of war in Myanmar. We shall see…
From BBC — “In a statement, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “Captain Sir Tom Moore was a hero in the truest sense of the word. In the dark days of the Second World War he fought for freedom and in the face of this country’s deepest post-war crisis he united us all, he cheered us all up, and he embodied the triumph of the human spirit.
“He became not just a national inspiration but a beacon of hope for the world. Our thoughts are with his daughter Hannah and all his family.”
The flag above 10 Downing Street has been flying at half-mast in tribute and Mr Johnson has spoken to Mrs Ingram-Moore to offer his condolences.”
To read the full article on BBC, click here.