As your editorial on sharing vaccines with poorer countries points out (19 September), we know that two doses do not guarantee protection against an infection, but we do know that they make a serious infection extremely unlikely. A first or second jab is of much greater benefit than a third one, protecting against serious illness, mortality and further transmission. Those outside the rich world are not being protected because of scarcity of supply. Their first or second jabs must have priority over our third.

Politicians may find this policy difficult, fearing critics who might accuse them of giving “our” benefit to foreigners. There is a simple solution. We should decline this third immunisation. I, a healthy pensioner who has had two doses, have refused the third jab, asking for it to be sent to those who will benefit more, and I invite others to do the same. This is not simply altruistic ;limiting the extent of the pandemic is an advantage to all of us.
Christopher Cheetham
Yatton, Somerset

Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.

Post source: Guardian

Source: Source: Sound Health and Lasting Wealth

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You May Also Like

Cases of ‘broken heart syndrome’ among middle-aged and older women are up ten-fold

Biden branded a racist for saying Latinx are scared of getting vaccinated…

Daily cases can be falling while the number of people infected still rises | David Spiegelhalter and Anthony Masters

At present, confirmed cases in the UK are declining; by specimen date…

Pianist Nicolas Hodges Adapts to Life With Parkinson’s

In the fall of 2018, the pianist Nicolas Hodges noticed his body…

Florida school bus driver arrested after driving 40 children while four times over the legal limit

Roster of care team photos, roles improved patient recognition, experience UC researchers…