Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.1136/medethics-2020-107152

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1136/medethics-2020-107152
suck pdf from google scholar
33837046!ä!33837046

suck abstract from ncbi

pmid33837046      J+Med+Ethics 2022 ; 48 (7): 434-438
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • WHO s allocation framework for COVAX: is it fair? #MMPMID33837046
  • Sharma S; Kawa N; Gomber A
  • J Med Ethics 2022[Jul]; 48 (7): 434-438 PMID33837046show ga
  • The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX) represents an unprecedented global collaboration facilitating the development and distribution of vaccines for COVID-19. COVAX pools and channels funds from state and non-state actors to promising vaccine candidates, and has started to distribute successful candidates to participating states. The WHO, one of the leaders of COVAX, recognised vaccine doses would initially be scarce, and therefore, prepared a two-staged allocation mechanism they considered fair. In the first stage, vaccine doses are distributed equally among participating countries, while in the second stage vaccine doses will be allocated according to a country's need. Ethicists have questioned whether this is the fairest distribution-they argue a country's need should be taken into account from the start and correspondingly, have proposed a framework that treats individuals with equal moral concern, aims to minimise harm and gives priority to the worst-off. In this paper, we seek to explore these concerns by comparing COVAX's allocation mechanism to a targeted allocation based on need. We consider which distribution would more likely maximise well-being and align with principles of equity. We conclude that although in theory, a targeted distribution in proportion to a country's need would be more morally justifiable, when political realities are taken into account, an equal distribution seems more likely to avert a greater number of deaths and reduce disparities.
  • |*COVID-19[MESH]
  • |*COVID-19 Vaccines[MESH]
  • |Humans[MESH]


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box