On the Ethics of Global Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccines: A Kenyan Perspective

Download PDF:

Abstract

The end of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be achieved through large-scale vaccination of the global population. So far vaccination against COVID-19 has been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity, minimize economic and social burdens, and ensure that people resume their everyday activities. Fair and equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines is critical in ensuring ethical distribution globally. This paper discusses ethical allocation of COVID-19 vaccines, focusing on models that have been proposed for global allocation, as well as provides a discussion on a Christian response to the pandemic.

Keywords: COVID-19 Pandemic, SARS-CoV-2, Vaccines, Global allocation, Vaccine Hesitancy, Equity, Justice

Introduction

The SARS-CoV-2 virus emerged in Wuhan, Huabei province, China in 2019. This virus was identified as the causative agent for the coronavirus disease COVID-19 (Sheahan and Frieman 2020, 37). The virus is thought to have emerged from a Wuhan seafood market through zoonotic transmission. The virus rapidly spread to other cities in China and soon after, through human-to-human transmission, it spread globally (Umakanthan et al. 2020, 754). Following rapid increases of cases outside China, COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020 (WHO 2020c). The WHO provided public health recommendations that have continued to be revised as new information about the disease emerges in an effort to contain the spread of the disease (WHO 2021a). These recommendations were soon adopted by several countries. The continued spread of the virus led to more strict recommendations, which saw most countries take unprecedented lockdown measures in a bid to further contain the disease. When these strict measures failed to contain the disease, it became apparent that there was a dire global need for preventive immunization strategies.

Prior to the emergency of SARS-CoV-2, there had been ongoing vaccine research against other coronaviruses that cause diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) (Ball 2020). The ongoing rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines has been made possible as a result of years of research on related viruses, faster ways of vaccine development, and availability of sufficient resources. By 2021, several vaccine developers had conducted large clinical trials that were showing promising results (COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker 2021).

Challenges Affecting Global Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccines

The goals for COVID-19 vaccinations include reducing disease severity, reducing burden on healthcare systems, and reducing transmission to allow for reopening of global economies and resumption of normal life (Gupta and Morain 2021, 137–39). The control of COVID-19 cannot be achieved without developing an effective immunization strategy globally. In their paper on planning of COVID-19 vaccines, DeRoo, Pudalov, and Fu (2020, 2458) note that to achieve the above objectives, safe and effective vaccines need to be delivered rapidly to the population. However, they reiterate that for broad immunological protection to be realized the vaccines must not only be available, but increased vaccine uptake will be as important. This has been echoed by Wouters et al. (2021, 1023, 1031), who indicate that enough and affordable vaccines need to be produced and distributed globally.

Vaccine Hesitancy

Hesitancy is defined as “delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccine services” (MacDonald 2015, 4163). There has been reluctance and refusal to take up the COVID-19 vaccines among groups and individuals. This has been attributed to several concerns about side effects, effectiveness, the fast pace of vaccine development, safety, and lack of concern about COVID-19 infection (Solís Arce et al. 2021, 1389–90). Some people hesitant to receive vaccines cite religious reasons and instead pray and use religious items of purification and/or healing such as holy water (Garcia and Yap 2021, e529).

Even prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, vaccine hesitancy was a global concern that was declared by the WHO as one of the ten threats to global health (WHO 2019). Vaccine hesitancy is a limiting factor to the prevention of COVID-19 infection globally. This has been compounded by the politicization of COVID-19 vaccination efforts. The politicization has been attributed to a number of factors, and has included statements made by various political leaders around the globe—including in the US—stemming from uncertainties surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines. Such utterances from influential figure are likely to be construed as the truth by people who share the same political beliefs.

Additionally, media coverage also perpetuated a lot of misinformation about COVID-19. Some media platforms termed the disease as normal flu, political flu, and flu panic (Bolsen and Palm 2022, 85). Social media also contributed to the ubiquity of misinformation about the pandemic globally. False claims and conspiracy theories were being circulated through the use of smart phones. This spread of unreliable and unscientific information through such channels with limited gatekeeping contributes to endangering the public and exacerbating the spread of the virus and has been linked to high levels of vaccine hesitance (Broniatowski et al. 2020, S5315–16). Effective communication is central in the management of health crises. Despite the many sources of information that are available to the public, governments have a responsibility to provide strategic authoritative information and to give reassurance and guidance to the public in the fight against the spread of COVID-19.

To successfully reduce mortality and morbidity from vaccine-preventable infectious diseases such as COVID-19, there is a dire need for widespread acceptance of vaccines (Dubé et al. 2013, 1763). Widespread vaccination will not only offer direct protection to vaccinated individuals but also provide protection to the whole community, even those who are not vaccinated (Fine, Eames, and Heymann 2011, 911–12).

To overcome vaccine hesitancy, governments should invest in targeted education programs to improve vaccine uptake and adherence to other preventive measures (Kaim et al. 2021, 1, 6). In addition, it will be prudent to provide information on the safety of the vaccines to dispel fears. The government can also involve other stakeholders such as community leaders and community health workers, who play an important role in tackling misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines.

Lessons learned from previous experiences with vaccination preprograms can be applied in addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. For instance, Aguolu and colleagues conducted a review of studies on interventions to address measles and human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine hesitancy. The review demonstrated that educational interventional and on-site vaccinations improved awareness and knowledge and were associated with acceptability and uptake of the vaccines. Vaccine message framing that included information on benefits of receiving versus not receiving vaccines tailored for target population was also associated with increased vaccine uptake. In addition, financial incentives, including free vaccination both for healthcare providers and end users, were found to have been associated with HPV vaccine initiation and completion (Aguolu et al. 2022, 334–36).

Funding For Covid-19 Vaccine

While vaccine development has been underinvested in the past, this has not been the case for COVID-19 vaccines. The urgent need for vaccines has led to an upsurge of not only financing of clinical trials by governments, non-profit organizations, international financial institutions, philanthropic organizations, and individuals (Hooker and Palumbo 2020), but also investment in infrastructure for vaccine development and distribution (Wouters et al. 2021, 1031).

Despite such investments, funding has remained a major limiting factor in the distribution of vaccines, especially in low-income countries. Kenya, for instance, has greatly benefited from funding by the World Bank to cover its COVID-19 management expenses. The first vaccines to arrive in Kenya were sent through the COVAX Facility in March 2021. Vaccine roll-out was planned to be done in three phases. Kenya’s target is to vaccinate 30% of its population and was expecting that COVAX supply would cover 20%, while local funding would cover the remaining 10%. The initial plan was to prioritize frontline workers, who included healthcare workers, the police force, and teachers. This was later revised to include adults aged 58 and above. Phase two was to include those vulnerable above 18 with comorbidities, and phase 3 would involve vaccination of adults above 18 years as vaccine supplies increased. This would translate to a total population of about 26 million Kenyans to be vaccinated by the end of 2022 (MOH 2021, 4).

Addressing challenges to meeting such targets, the Kenyan Ministry of Health (MOH) identifies budgetary constraints that have strained communication, community awareness creation, and capacity building. This is despite the funding received from international donors and national budget allocations for COVID-19 response. More specifically, such limited funds along with challenges related to geographical access have affected allocation of vaccines in hard-to-reach areas, disproportionately affecting communities in those places (MOH 2021, 7).

To address financial constraints and support vaccination access for limited resource settings, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson stated that they would keep their vaccines affordable for the duration of the pandemic, especially for low- and middle-income countries (Wouters et al. 2021, 1024–25). AstraZeneca likewise pledged to supply millions of vaccine doses to a number of countries in Europe and the US at no profit (Kemp 2020). Such pricing may change once the pandemic subsides; however, given the nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the expected timeframe for an end was unpredictable when these companies made their affordability commitments (Hooker and Palumbo 2020).

Other manufacturers targeted their COVID-19 vaccine primarily for premium private markets, meaning that this might only make them accessible to wealthier clients. Following previous practices, pharmaceutical companies charge different prices in different countries depending on what governments would be able to afford (Hooker and Palumbo 2020). The prices for COVID-19 vaccines are determined by multiple factors, including differences in technology and associated manufacturing costs, funding and funder’s demands, licensure processes, intellectual property rights, and political pressures for low pricing. Vaccine costs for countries may be a recurring expense depending on the duration of the protection they offer and their ability to offer protection against new variants (Wouters et al. 2021, 1027). Governments will need a sustainable source of revenue to cover the vaccine program expenses.

Vaccine Production Capacity

Furthermore, beyond the availability of funding for vaccine procurement, there are limited resources for vaccine manufacturing as well as limited capacity for vaccine production. More specifically, the sub-Saharan African region has been shown to have limited vaccine production capacity (Bright et al. 2021, 5). This means that low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) will rely heavily on both international donations and supply of vaccines from programs such as COVAX.

As the world’s biggest vaccine producer, India arranged collaborative agreements with several COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and has the capacity to produce large batches of COVID-19 vaccines for global distribution. This has made COVID-19 vaccines accessible to LMICs such as Kenya through the COVAX program. Despite its capacity, by May 2021 India had only vaccinated 2% of its total population of 1.3 billion people. Shortages of doses were reported through the country once all adults 18+ years became eligible for vaccination (Ellyatt 2021). Coupled with the COVID-19 second wave that India experienced in May 2021, vaccine manufacturing companies may have been overwhelmed and halted exportation of vaccines to focus on vaccinating India’s own population. The country was set to resume exportation of vaccines to COVAX and neighboring countries from October to December 2021 (Arora and Das 2021). This resumption of exports increased access for LMICs who had not been able to vaccinate a majority of their population due to the previously mentioned factors.

Models for Ethical Global Allocation of COVID-19 Vaccines

Vaccinating a large number of people globally will reduce infection and thereby prevent virus mutations that may make vaccines less effective. The challenge is to make the vaccines available globally and not just to wealthy countries. By the end of 2021, approximately 273 million cases of COVID-19 had been confirmed globally with approximately 5.3 million deaths related to COVID-19 disease. More than 7.7 million vaccine doses had been administered (WHO 2021b). Approximately a year later, in November 2022, there were approximately 645.2 million confirmed cases with 6.6 million deaths related to COVID 19 globally (CSSE 2022).

Towards the end of 2021, the United Arab Emirates was leading in vaccination rate with approximately 88% of its population fully vaccinated. Other countries such as the UK had fully vaccinated about 67% of its population. The US had about 58% of its population fully vaccinated, while India had fully vaccinated only 30% of its population. Only 5.7% of the population in LMICs had received at least one dose out of the 54% of the world population that had been partially vaccinated (Mathieu et al. 2021). By November 2022, 68.5% of the world population has received at least one dose of a COVID19 vaccine while only 24.6% of people in LMICs have received at least one dose of the vaccine (Mathieu et al. 2022). These differing rates in vaccination by country reflect inequity in access to vaccines globally.

To ensure equitable access to the vaccines, the WHO, in collaboration with Gavi and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), established a global collaborative program: the COVID-19 Vaccine Global Access (COVAX) Facility. The aim of the program was to collaboratively develop, procure, deliver, and ensure fair and equitable global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. COVAX’s approach was to have vaccines allocated in phases, prioritizing healthcare workers, older adults, and other high-risk individuals before vaccinating other sections of the population. The WHO recommended two models or frameworks that were accepted by COVAX. First, fair allocation of vaccines would occur by allocating enough vaccine quantities to cover 20% of the population in participating countries. A follow-up phase would then expand coverage to other populations (WHO 2020a, 23–29).

COVAX’s main goal of ensuring equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines has been challenging to achieve, as wealthy countries procured large quantities of vaccines directly from developers, thus limiting the supply available for the COVAX program. According to Wouters et al., “governments in high-income countries, representing 16% of the global population, have struck pre-orders covering at least 4.2 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines. These countries secured at least 70% of doses available in 2021 of five leading vaccine candidates, on the basis of known deals” (2021, 1028). Securing vaccines in this manner led to wealthy nations vaccinating their own populations ahead of priority populations and high-risk populations in LMICs (Wouters et al. 2021, 1028). Further exacerbating access issues, wealthy nations purchased more doses than they needed for their populations. For instance, by September 2021 the EU secured 3 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses (i.e., 6.6 doses per person), the US brokered deals for 1.3 billion doses (nearly 5 doses per person), and Canada secured 450 million doses for a population of less than 40 million (more than 11 doses per person). Similarly, the UK had agreements for over 500 million doses (approximately 7.5 doses per person), and Australia ordered 170 million doses for a population of 25 million people (nearly 7 doses per person). LMICs like Kenya with little purchasing power were left scrambling for whatever little vaccine supply was left. Comparatively, Kenya secured only 3 million for 48 million people (1 dose per 16 people) (Mathieu et al. 2021).

In addition to the COVAX models, alternative frameworks were proposed. In their paper on an ethical framework for global vaccine allocation, Emanuel et al. highlighted three important values that must be considered when distributing COVID-19 vaccines: “benefiting people and limiting harm, prioritizing the disadvantaged and equal moral concern” (2020, 1309–10). The authors proposed an alternative framework they referred to as the Fair Priority Model directed to COVAX, vaccine developers, and governments.

The Fair Priority Model proposed three phases to be considered for global vaccine allocation. Phase 1 aims at reducing premature deaths that may or may not have been a result of COVID-19 using the criterion of “Standard Expected Years of Life Lost (SEYLL) averted per dose” (1310). This phase promotes equal respect for lives in all countries by allocating vaccines to countries where they will save the most life years. Phase 2 seeks to measure and reduce the socio-economic impact of the disease using SEYLL, Gross National Income (GNI) per vaccine dose, and the poverty gap. This means that vaccines will continue to be allocated even after death reduction to cushion against further economic decline. Finally, Phase 3 aims at reducing infections to allow for global economic recovery by first prioritizing countries most affected by the pandemic and eventually distributing vaccines to all other countries (1310–11).

Emanuel et al. proceeded to identify several key flaws with the COVAX phased-approach model. First, while they seem to agree that the COVAX proposal to allocate vaccines based on percentage addresses the principle of equal moral concern, they indicate that such a model does not consider the differences in suffering for different populations, and that as a result international assistance should be given to those who are suffering the most. Instead, they argue that the primary measure for allocation ought to be the number of premature deaths that a vaccine would prevent (1310). Secondly, they argue that allocation based on the populations most at risk (e.g., healthcare workers and the elderly) does not take into consideration the level of risk in different geographical environments. Healthcare workers in developed countries are not at equal risk with those in limited-resource countries. Furthermore, they argue that such an approach is biased toward benefiting well-developed countries with higher numbers of the population identified as most at-risk (1311–12).

Anticipating potential criticisms to the Fair Priority Model, Emanuel et al. indicate that arguments may be made that fair allocation of vaccines should be conditioned on infrastructural capacity and assurance that countries will be able to distribute the vaccines to the population to minimize death and mitigate economic harm. In response, the authors argue that “a fair distribution of emergency supplies ultimately aims at helping individuals and as long as individuals benefit, fair global distribution among countries should neither require that international distribution of vaccines be perfectly just nor seek to punish unrelated injustices” (1312). They also consider arguments that “the Fair Priority Model unfairly disadvantages countries that have effectively suppressed viral transmission without a vaccine and rewards those who have responded ineffectively” (1312). The authors point out that “a fair distribution of vaccine among countries must mitigate future health, economic, and other harms spawned by COVID-19. It should not be backward looking, punishing or rewarding countries for their COVID-19 response or aiming to redress past injustices” (1312).

Finally, Emanuel et al. address potential concerns about the use of health metrics being “too uncertain and demanding to calculate,” noting that “in a novel, rapidly evolving pandemic, any approach sufficiently sophisticated to meaningfully operationalize ethical values will require approximations as well as judgments about the relative weight to assign different metrics, such as SEYLL and the poverty gap” (1312). In addition, they argue that “the proposed metrics are routinely used in global health, and basing vaccine distribution on these metrics will encourage collection and reporting of accurate data on changes in mortality and poverty related to COVID-19” (1312).

The COVAX model has encountered many challenges with the vaccine distribution process. This includes relying primarily on the Serum Institute of India (SII), which was licensed to mass produce vaccines for the COVAX facility. When SII paused its vaccine production to address the COVID-19 surge in India, COVAX fell behind its distribution goals for June 2021 by about 190 million doses (Ducharme 2021). If COVAX had access to sufficient funds from global economic leaders such as the US and other wealthy countries from the initial establishment, it would have had the ability to make deals with other manufacturers, thereby boosting vaccine supplies and avoiding many of the delays in global vaccine distribution among LMICs that were experienced (Ducharme 2021).

Some countries accused COVAX of poor communication and inefficient bureaucracy when trying to get information on the status of national vaccines orders. Additional complaints arose about prolonged delays in expected delivery of vaccines. Libya and Uruguay, for instance, gave up waiting for their vaccine orders placed through COVAX and paid for a second supply of vaccines, this time directly dealing with the pharmaceutical companies (Goldhill 2021). Further complicating factors, LMICs had challenges distributing the vaccines once they were received from COVAX. In addition to the prolonged delays in delivery, vaccines were often received with little notice, throwing the local supply and distribution chains into chaos. Lack of storage facilities such as deep freezers needed for maintaining potency of the vaccines led to numerous reports of wasted doses (Mueller and Robbins 2021).

It is unfortunate that we had not learned from experiences with highly infectious diseases such as Ebola in West Africa and the H1N1 pandemic. Had the COVAX facility been established and well funded prior to the COVID pandemic, the unjust and inequitable global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines may not have been experienced. To prevent such inequities from occurring in the future, global solidarity is imperative. High-income countries should participate in COVAX, guarantee funding for COVAX, and support transfer of intellectual property rights to LMICs for them to be able to also manufacture vaccines within their countries (Clinton and Yoo 2022).

Despite these challenges, COVAX has played a big role in helping to balance the global inequities in allocation and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, especially in limited-resource settings. By early 2022, COVAX had distributed 1,678,517,990 vaccines, of which 61% were distributed to 148 countries and territories participating in COVAX (Yoo et al. 2022, 315, 322).

A Christian Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Pandemics are not a new phenomenon in the face of Christianity. The Bible speaks of a broken world since the time of the fall of humanity, with its resulting curses and the subsequent spread of sin beginning in Genesis 3. The Bible does not shy away from the topic of death either. Most relevant for our purposes, it also mentions a number of plagues, pestilences, or pandemics killing people. Some of the plagues were directly sent by God as punishment for disobeying the Covenant (Lev 26:25). In Exodus, God sent ten plagues upon Egypt when Pharaoh refused to let the Israelites leave (Exod 7:14–12:36). Later in the New Testament, in Revelation 6:8, one of the four apocalyptic seals reveals a rider who brings the power to kill by plague.

Yet, God is not blind to human suffering. Through Christ Jesus, God participates in our humanity and shares our grief, suffering, and sorrows. Jesus himself died a painful death on the cross for our sins. The Bible teaches us about suffering while providing an explanation for why God allows suffering, such as in Romans 5:3–4: “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope” (NIV). Additionally, we are encouraged to trust in God and not to be fearful in the face of suffering (Isa 41:10). While it is understandable for human beings to be afraid, especially in times like this, God promises his unwavering support for his children during these challenging seasons.

In his book Virus as a Summons to Faith, Brueggemann (2020, 35–45) explains how it is important for us to turn to God in prayer and have trust in him hearing our prayers. He provides a comparison of the current situation with the COVID-19 pandemic with the suffering that the Israelites went through. While in Egypt, the Israelites would pray and expect God to answer their prayers simply because he had made a covenant with them, and therefore they expected God to automatically honor his promises. But, Brueggemann explains that we should not expect to see immediate answers simply because we have prayed and trusted in God; rather, we are expected to repent of our sins and live a life in obedience to God’s commandments. By doing so, our lives are then renewed and transformed. As a result, disasters such as the COVID-19 pandemic are defeated through God’s power (Brueggemann 2020, 57ff).

Reflecting back on the creation story, humans were created in the image of God and with unique capacities to make artifacts that are distinct from other animals. They were given the mandate to be the sole custodians of God’s creation. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Christians have continued to turn to Jesus and have responded to global needs as a reflection of Jesus’ great commandment on love for God and others (Mark 12:30–31). Humankind has been given a dominion mandate to take care of God’s creation. Christians therefore have a duty to care for the sick and most vulnerable in society, caring for both their physical and spiritual needs.

As part of this greatest commandment, Christians have a duty to advocate for the weak and voiceless in society. We have a biblical duty to protect our neighbors—“Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord” (Lev 19:16). As Christians we affirm that people have intrinsic value because we are all created in the image of God and therefore should have equal chances of receiving treatment and preventive interventions. Christians and other religious communities must purpose to hold stakeholders such as governments, the WHO, the CDC, and pharmaceutical companies accountable to ensure that vaccines are made accessible and that they are fairly and equitably distributed to everyone across our global societies, including the vulnerable communities in hard-to-reach areas and especially in limited-resource settings. Loving our neighbors should not be limited to political boundaries. For instance, Christians in wealthy nations should call out their governments for purchasing excess vaccine doses and call for them to donate vaccines to LMICs. In addition, they could ask their governments to make contributions to the COVAX facility, which would then use the funds to purchase more vaccines for LMICs.

Christians are called to discern the truth on earth and make decisions in response. Christians should recognize the gifts God has given to scientists and medical professionals. Our duty is to support those who have these gifts as they focus on taking care of the sick and finding better treatment and preventive strategies against COVID-19. Science and medicine, just like other professions, are gifts given to humankind to enhance earth’s fruitfulness and ultimately glorify God the Creator. Physicians have a mandate to heal, and as a result those who have been healed can continue with their assigned earthly mandates.

It is unfortunate that during the initial stages of the pandemic some religious leaders were not in full support of the public health preventive measures. Some of the leaders continued hosting regular religious events with congregants in complete disregard of the lockdown measures and restrictions on crowd gatherings that were recommended. Activities from various religions have been associated with community spread of COVID-19, some resulting in hospitalization and death (McKie 2020, McGee 2020, and Rasid 2020). One such example involved several large public gatherings affiliated with churches in South Korea which resulted in the significant spread of COVID-19 cases (Kwon 2020).

The WHO made several recommendations early on during the pandemic as a way for the church to provide support against the virus. Religious leaders were urged to help in observing the measures put in place to ensure safety during religious events, share evidence-based public health information, and to strengthen social support structures such as mental and spiritual health among others (WHO 2020b). Religious leaders also play an important role in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. Such leaders in collaboration with other stakeholders can engage with often skeptical local communities and involve them in the processes of vaccine allocation. This will not only encourage buy-in and support but also promote acceptance of vaccines and address stigma and misinformation that have been a great impediment in the acceptance and uptake of vaccines. Religious leaders and healthcare workers are a trusted source of information for most people. Barrier analysis studies conducted by World Vision demonstrated the influence of church leaders on acceptance of vaccines, indicating that vaccines are more acceptable if recommended by religious leaders and community workers (World Vision 2021).

Additionally, churches and other religious establishments can play a vital role in the distribution network itself, serving as vaccination centers for local communities in a similar way that churches are frequently used as shelters during other disasters. Likewise, church leaders are known to have strong influence on their communities and in some places even on local governments. As active partners with community workers and healthcare workers, such religious leaders can provide influence and assistance to overcome local logistical difficulties in COVID-19 vaccine allocation and distribution, especially in hard-to-reach areas. In addition, they can hold governments accountable and ensure that allocation of vaccines is done fairly and equitably.

When vaccines were made available in Kenya, the Ministry of Health developed a distribution plan that prioritized essential workers, including healthcare workers and security personnel. The vaccines were also distributed to one hospital facility per count, the national referral hospitals, and a few selected private health facilities (MOH 2021, 13ff). This meant that even though one was eligible for a vaccine, you had no chance of getting the vaccines until much later when distribution started in other county and sub-county hospitals. Those living far from the selected vaccination hospitals had to travel long distances to get vaccinated, and there was no guarantee that one would get a vaccine even once they got to the vaccination centers as doses that were allocated to the centers themselves were limited. As more vaccines were purchased and made available, the Kenyan government expanded vaccination centers to include church facilities. This made it easier for the public to access the vaccines since there are numerous churches spread all over the country, even in remote villages.

In Kenya, an Interfaith Council with representation from different denominations was established to develop a program for public sensitization and capacity building for religious leaders. In addition, they developed protocols for gradual reopening of worship places and celebration of other religious activities in compliance with the COVID-19 public health preventive directives that were in place (Kahiu 2020).

The COVID-19 crisis is a call to prayer for Christians to turn to the Creator of the universe in such times of certainty just as we do in times of joy. We should pray for physicians, scientists, politicians, and all stakeholders involved in COVID-19 response. In addition, we should pray for families that have lost loved ones. It is through prayer that Christians grow in their relationship with God and in their awareness of God’s compassion amid this crisis. It is through prayer that Christians learn total reliance on God’s love amid the pandemic.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic should be a lesson for the world to take precautions and prepare to make the word safer from future pandemics. It is clear that a coordinated prevention and treatment effort is needed for the pandemic to end. It is incumbent that stakeholders, including governments, funders, and vaccine developers, work together to ensure that there is adequate vaccine access, especially to the most vulnerable globally.

The injustice in vaccine access and distribution observed over the course of the pandemic should be strongly condemned and never repeated. A coordinated global effort based on equity sharing of vaccines and other resources is needed if indeed the pandemic is to end. LMICs also need to step up and explore ways of bridging the resource gap together to enhance their own capacity to develop vaccines for not only COVID-19 but other diseases that have afflicted their populations for decades.

Despite the devastation that the pandemic continues to cause, it has been an opportunity to bring different communities together in caring for each other and showing compassion for one another. The way in which Christians treat others, especially during this stressful time, should be a reflection of God’s nature. Christians demonstrate that we were created in God’s image through faithful execution of our calling. God’s interaction with creation through the divine activities of creating, preserving, and governing corresponds to the tasks that humankind, specifically Christians, perform to fulfill their mandates in relationship to earth.

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any government institution.

References

Aguolu, Obianuju G., Amyn A. Malik, Noureen Ahmed, and Saad B. Omer. 2022. “Overcoming Vaccine Hesitancy for Future COVID-19 and HIV Vaccines: Lessons from Measles and HPV Vaccines.” Current HIV/AIDS Reports 19, no. 5: 328–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11904-022-00622-0.

Arora, Neha, and Krishna N Das. 2021. “India to Restart COVID Vaccine Exports to COVAX, Neighbours.” Reuters, September 20, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-resume-covid-vaccine-exports-next-quarter-2021-09-20/.

Ball, Philip. 2020. “The Lightning-Fast Quest for COVID Vaccines—And What It Means for Other Diseases.” Nature 589 (December): 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03626-1.

Bolsen, Toby, and Risa Palm. 2022. “Politicization and COVID-19 Vaccine Resistance in the U.S.” Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science 188, no. 1: 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.pmbts.2021.10.002.

Bright, Bisi, Chinedum Peace Babalola, Nadia Adjoa Sam-Agudu, Augustine Anayochukwu Onyeaghala, Adebola Olatunji, Ufuoma Aduh, Patrick O. Sobande et al. 2021. “COVID-19 Preparedness: Capacity to Manufacture Vaccines, Therapeutics and Diagnostics in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Globalization and Health 17, no. 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-021-00668-6.

Broniatowski, David A., Amelia M. Jamison, Neil F. Johnson, Nicolás Velasquez, Rhys Leahy, Nicholas Johnson Restrepo, Mark Dredze, and Sandra C. Quinn. 2020. “Facebook Pages, the ‘Disneyland’ Measles Outbreak, and Promotion of Vaccine Refusal as a Civil Right, 2009–2019.” American Journal of Public Health 110, no. S3: S312–18. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305869.

Brueggemann, Walter. 2020. Virus as a Summons to Faith: Biblical Reflections in a Time of Loss, Grief, and Uncertainty. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Clinton, Chelsea, and Katelyn J. Yoo. 2022. “Is COVAX to Blame for Failing to Close Global Vaccination Disparities?” Health Affairs Forefront, June 14, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1377/forefront.20220609.695589.

COVID-19 Vaccine Tracker. 2021. “Vaccine Candidates in Clinical Trials.” Accessed September 26, 2021. https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/vaccines/.

CSSE (Centre for Systems Science and Engineering). 2022. “COVID 19 Dashboard by the Centre for Systems Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University.” John Hopkins University & Medicine. Accessed December 5, 2022. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html.

DeRoo, Schaffer S., Natalie J. Pudalov, and Linda Y. Fu. 2020. “Planning For a COVID-19 Vaccination Program.” JAMA 323, no. 24: 2458–59. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.8711.

Dubé, Eve, Caroline Laberge, Maryse Guay, Paul Bramadat, Réal Roy, and Julie A. Bettinger. 2013. “Vaccine Hesitancy: An Overview.” Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics 9, no. 8: 1763–73. https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.24657.

Ducharme, Jamie. 2021. “COVAX Was a Great Idea, But Is Now 500 Million Doses Short of Its Vaccine Distribution Goals. What Exactly Went Wrong?” Time, September 9, 2021. https://time.com/6096172/covax-vaccines-what-went-wrong/.

Ellyatt, Holly. 2021. “India Is The Home of the World’s Biggest Producer of Covid Vaccines. But It’s Facing a Major Internal Shortage.” CNBC, May 5, 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/05/why-covid-vaccine-producer-india-faces-major-shortage-of-doses.html.

Emanuel, Ezekiel J., Govind Persad, Adam Kern, Allen Buchanan, Cécile Fabre, Daniel Halliday, Joseph Heath et al. 2020. “An Ethical Framework for Global Vaccine Allocation: The Fair Priority Model Offers a Practical Way to Fulfill Pledges to Distribute Vaccines Fairly and Equitably.” Science 369, no. 6509: 1309–12. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe2803.

Fine, Paul, Ken Eames, and David L. Heymann. 2011. “‘Herd Immunity’: A Rough Guide.” Clinical Infectious Disease 52, no. 7: 911–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cir007.

Garcia, Louiegi L., and John Federick C. Yap. 2021. “The Role of Religiosity in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy.” Journal of Public Health 43, no. 3: e529–e530. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdab192.

Goldhill, Olivia. 2021. “‘Naively Ambitious’: How COVAX Failed on Its Promise to Vaccinate the World.” STAT News, October 8, 2021. https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/08/how-covax-failed-on-its-promise-to-vaccinate-the-world/.

Gupta, Rohit, and Stephanie R. Morain. 2021. “Ethical Allocation of Future COVID-19 Vaccines.” Journal of Medical Ethics 47, no. 3: 137–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106850.

Hooker, Lucy, and Daniele Palumbo. 2020. “Covid Vaccines: Will Drug Companies Make Bumper Profits?” BBC News, December 18, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55170756.

Kahiu, Magdalene. 2020. “Catholic Prelate to Head Kenya’s Interfaith Council to Guide Resumption of Public Worship.” Association for Catholic Information in Africa, June 12, 2020. https://www.aciafrica.org/news/1501/catholic-prelate-to-head-kenyas-interfaith-council-to-guide-resumption-of-public-worship.

Kaim, Arielle, Maya Siman-Tov, Eli Jaffe, and Bruria Adini. 2021. “Effect of a Concise Educational Program on COVID-19 Vaccination Attitudes.” Frontiers in Public Health 9, no. 767447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.767447.

Kemp, Adrian. 2020. “AstraZeneca to Supply Europe With Up to 400 Million Doses of Oxford University’s Vaccine at No Profit.” AstraZeneca, June 13, 2020. https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2020/astrazeneca-to-supply-europe-with-up-to-400-million-doses-of-oxford-universitys-vaccine-at-no-profit.html.

Kwon, Jen. 2020. “For the Second Time, a Defiant Church Group Is Linked to a COVID Outbreak in South Korea.” CBS News, August 19, 2020. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/south-korea-coronavirus-outbreak-linked-defiant-church-group-2nd-time-covid-pandemic/.

MacDonald, Noni E. 2015. “Vaccine Hesitancy: Definition, Scope and Determinants.” Vaccine 33, no. 34 (August): 4161–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.036.

Mathieu, Edouard, Hannah Ritchie, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, Cameron Appel, Daniel Gavrilov, Charlie Giattino, Joe Hasell et al. 2021b. “Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) Vaccinations.” Our World in Data. Accessed September 16, 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations.

Mathieu, Edouard, Hannah Ritchie, Lucas Rodés-Guirao, Cameron Appel, Daniel Gavrilov, Charlie Giattino, Joe Hasell et al. 2022. “Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19) Vaccinations.” Our World in Data. Accessed December 2, 2022. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations.

McGee, Luke. 2020. “A Controversial Religious Group Is at the Center of South Korea’s Coronavirus Outbreak.” CNN, February 22, 2020. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/22/asia/south-korea-coronavirus-religious-group-intl/index.html.

McKie, Robin. 2020. “Did Singing Together Spread Coronavirus to Four Choirs?” The Guardian, May 17, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/17/did-singing-together-spread-coronavirus-to-four-choirs.

Ministry of Health, Kenya (MOH). 2021. National COVID-19 Vaccine Deployment Plan: National Vaccine & Immunization Program Acceleration Of COVID-19 Vaccination Program In Kenya. August. https://www.health.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/NATIONAL-COVID-19-VACCINE-DEPLOYMENT-PLAN-2021.pdf.

Mueller, Benjamin, and Rebecca Robbins. 2021. “Where a Vast Global Vaccination Program Went Wrong.” The New York Times, August 7, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/world/europe/covax-covid-vaccine-problems-africa.html.

Rashid, Raphael. 2020. “Being Called a Cult Is One Thing, Being Blamed for an Epidemic Is Quite Another.” The New York Times, March 9, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/opinion/coronavirus-south-korea-church.html.

Sheahan, Timothy P., and Matthew B. Frieman. 2020. “The Continued Epidemic Threat of SARS-Cov-2 and Implications for the Future of Global Public Health.” Current Opinion in Virology 40 (February): 37–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2020.05.010.

Solís Arce, Julio S., Shana S. Warren, Niccolò F. Meriggi, Alexandra Scacco, Nina McMurry, Maarten Voors, Maarten Voors et al. 2021. “COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance and Hesitancy in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Nature Medicine (27): 1385–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01454-y.

Umakanthan, Srikanth, Pradeep Sahu, Anu V. Ranade, Maryann M. Bukelo, Joseph Sushil Rao, Lucas Faria Abrahao-Machado, Samarika Dahal, Hari Kumar, and K.V. Dhananjaya. 2020. “Origin, Transmission, Diagnosis and Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).” Postgraduate Medical Journal 96: 753–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2020-138234.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2019. “Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019.” https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2020a. Fair Allocation Mechanism for COVID-19 Vaccines Through the COVAX Facility. September 9, 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/fair-allocation-mechanism-for-covid-19-vaccines-through-the-covax-facility.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2020b. Practical Considerations and Recommendations for Religious Leaders and Faith-Based Communities in the Context of COVID-19. April 7, 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/practical-considerations-and-recommendations-for-religious-leaders-and-faith-based-communities-in-the-context-of-covid-19.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2020c. “WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19 – 11 March 2020.” March 11, 2020. https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—11-march-2020.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2021a. “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic.” Accessed August 31, 2021. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.

WHO (World Health Organization). 2021b. “WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard.” Accessed August 31, 2021. https://covid19.who.int/?mapFilter=vaccinations.

World Vision. 2021. “Faith Leaders Must Play Key Role in COVID-19 Vaccine Roll-Out.” January 8, 2021. https://www.wvi.org/newsroom/coronavirus-health-crisis/faith-leaders-must-play-key-role-covid-19-vaccine-roll-out.

Wouters, Olivier J., Kenneth C. Shadlen, Maximilian Salcher-Konrad, Andrew J. Pollard, Heidi J. Larson, Yot Teerawattananon, and Mark Jit. 2021. “Challenges in Ensuring Global Access to COVID-19 Vaccines: Production, Affordability, Allocation, and Deployment.” The Lancet 397, no. 10278: 1023–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00306-8.

Yoo, Katelyn J., Akriti Mehta, Joshua Mak, David Bishai, Collins Chansa, and Bryan Patenaude. 2022. “COVAX and Equitable Access to COVID-19 Vaccines.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 100, no. 5: 315–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.21.287516.

Download PDF: