Africans have become victims of Covid-19 vaccine scramble as rich nations continue to hoard vaccines and China intensifies distribution of its vaccines. Subsequently, African travellers who are vaccinated with Chinese manufactured Sinopharm and Sinovac vaccines are not able to enter European Union (EU) and other Western nations. At least eleven EU countries, including Germany, a top travel destination, do not recognize the Sinopharm vaccines.
The pushback against these vaccines is based on their rather low efficacy levels and secrecy. Sinopharm for an example only offers 79% protection against symptomatic Covid-19 infection 14 days or more after the second dose is administered, its efficacy against hospitalisation also stands at 79%. The efficacy rate of Sinovac, another Chinese vaccine, is at around 50.4%. Having said that, Sinopharm’s efficacy rate is slightly higher than that of EU approved Oxford AstraZeneca which stands at 76% two weeks after the second dose has been administered. Similarly, Johnson’s and Johnson’s (J&J) on the other hand has an efficacy rate of 66.3% two weeks after second dose of the vaccine is administered. What is the problem then; why are Chinese vaccines not accepted by the EU and other Western nations?
The controversy surrounding Chinese vaccines’ efficacy and rejection, is due to Beijing’s failure to share crucial data of its Phase 3 medical trials. Whereas, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, have published their Phase 3 data in, peer-reviewed journals, China has come under fire for overstating efficacy rates of its vaccines without providing proof. Western countries have responded by refusing entry to their countries to those vaccinated with these vaccines.
Africans have responded angrily to these measures, they argue that instead of shutting out African travellers altogether, the EU should make use of other measures for testing. The current blanket ban of African travellers with vaccines other than those sanctioned by these countries “perpetuates travel apartheid” as the United Nations (UN) Secretary General Antonio Guterres said. What has further complicated international travel for most Africans has been the introduction of a Covid-19 passport. The Covid-19 passport is a certification that proves vaccination and further states the type of vaccine received. The Covid-19 passport will undoubtedly have far reaching socio-economic implications for many Africans particularly those with Chinese vaccines Besides, current low vaccination levels will also prevent many Africans from travel abroad. Although some African nations have the wherewithal to purchase vaccines, those attempts are hindered by supply chain red tape and discrimination.
Whilst more than 80% of Africans are still to receive their first dose of vaccine, wealthier nations have begun rolling out booster programs for their citizens. Even when African nations like Botswana offered to buy vaccines at higher cost than other nations, they were made to wait long before their supplies could be delivered. Meanwhile, in several African countries such as Namibia and Nigeria, vaccines facilitated by COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access,(COVAX) vaccine program arrived late necessitating health authorities to halt their vaccination drives, a situation that consequently gave rise to vaccine hesitancy and renewed spur of conspiracy theories. COVAX, is a worldwide initiative aimed at equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines directed by the GAVI vaccine alliance, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and the World Health Organization, alongside key delivery partner UNICEF. Namibia, a country with extraordinary close ties to Germany have found that even this intimacy had no relevance, Namibians vaccinated with Sinopharm were denied access to Germany.
Furthermore African countries who managed to access vaccines had to deal with the impact of late arrival of vaccines. This has forced many countries to destroy thousands of vaccines donated by Europe as well as some procured through the COVAX. The remaining shelf life wasn’t long enough to allow for distribution, while other countries like DRC managed to return their expired doses to COVAX many were unable to return the vaccines. According to Strive Masiyiwa, who was tasked to help procure vaccines for the African Union (AU), COVAX failed because it was rooted in a “deliberate global architecture of unfairness”. The main goal of COVAX was to vaccinate 20% of the population in poor countries against the prioritisation of 70% of the rich nations from the global vaccine pool. Despite COVAX’s noble undertaking to ensure vaccine distribution equity and to build the gap between poor and rich nations; the EU,US, India, Japan and Brazil have more vaccines individually than the rest of Africa.
There has been an injustice in the distribution of vaccines, Africans have been the victims not only of poor planning by their governments but also COVAX inability to fight for access on their behalf. Besides South Africa and couple of countries in Southern Africa, most countries in Sub Saharan Africa had to resort to Chinese vaccines. South Africa has been able to vaccinate most of its population including the majority of its civil servants using J&J and Pfizer. Consequently, return to overseas travel for most South African have been by and large without glitches. Could it be that South Africa received prior notification regarding future admissibility of some vaccines when travelling or was it good leadership? It is certainly none of the above, relative wealth of South Africa compared to other African countries played a role in this regard. Understandably the Chinese vaccines became readily accessible and cheaper if not entirely free to many African countries, however the controversy surrounding their efficacy has remained a great concern. African leadership should have followed the discussions, trends and politics of vaccines for the sake of their people. Instead, in desperation Africans opted for the low hanging solutions which have unfortunately come back to haunt Africans international travellers.