In the first half of 2020, when COVID-19 appeared and broke out, some epidemiologists predicted that the epidemic would be effectively controlled in the summer of 2021 and the world would return to normal. However, we have not yet seen any signs of restoring order in the world in the second half of 2021. Indeed, after more than a year of hard work and trials, we have seen that the spread of the virus has been moderated, and the number of the infected patients has declined in some countries, which allows the world to see the dawn of the restoration of normal order. However, in recent months, the epidemic has suddenly spread rapidly again in certain developing countries such as in regions of Southeast Asia, Latin America and Africa. This shows that the effective containing of the virus in some individual countries can only provide an exemplary role, and cannot solve the problem of re-opening the borders between countries, nor can it guarantee the world back to normal order. If other countries lose the guard against COVID-19, the effective governance of individual countries cannot be sustained.
The epidemic since 2020 and the measures taken to control the epidemic have severely affected the economic activities of the world. There has been massive unemployment around the world, affecting the livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people. Some developing countries have even experienced economic contraction and debt crises. Economic difficulties have hindered some countries’ commitments to combat climate change. Faced with the prolonged challenges of returning to normal, we can no longer do things unilaterally. The international community should seize the opportunity, take responsibility, and usher the world into a healthier period. 2022 cannot be missed again. Goal-based governance can help us clarify the tasks and priorities that need to be done for international cooperation, and provide the conditions for the world to restore its normal order.
Blocking the chain of virus transmission, finding a cure, and reducing mortality has been the direction of the efforts of all countries in the past year and a half. After more than a year of practices in fighting against COVID-19, governments, professionals and citizens of various countries have mastered more and more relevant knowledge and tools, with improved capabilities to prevent and respond to the pandemic. The number of epidemic cases and mortality declines owing to strengthened measures of travel restrictions and isolation, medical quarantine and treatment, improving the level of prevention and control of medical institutions, vaccination, promoting epidemic prevention knowledge, improving citizens’ self-protection, other non-pharmaceutical interventions, and mobilizing resources of the whole society, etc.
We have seen that the measures taken by the governments in many countries have shown social effects. Such as 1. Multi-Ministry Task Force were established before the emergence of the first COVID19 case. 2. Screening measures and border controls, including temperature measures, were held for incoming travelers. 3. To detect cases, complementary diagnostic methods and containment and surveillance measures were deployed. 4. A network of preparedness facilities was set up to manage infected cases. 5. All confirmed or suspected cases were isolated. 6. Social and community assessments were performed. 7. Clinical guidelines for medical treatment were formulated and ICU responses were provided to the virus outbreak. 8. Solutions were offered for the treatment of severely ill patients, the control of infection, the sharing of information among health personnel, psychological problems in healthcare workers and their exhaustion.
Facing the ravages of a virus that has never been experienced before, governments of various countries have launched efforts to block the virus and rescue patients after receiving case reports, and adopted various social controls, technical, and medical measures to prevent further spreading and expanding of the epidemics. Whether it is banning large gatherings to stop the spread of the virus, or emphasizing the resilience and adaptability of the society in the face of the virus, these efforts mark a useful exploration of human society. While the range and redundancy of anti-epidemic resources in each country are different, the anti-epidemic measures taken by governments of various countries based on limited resources and capabilities are all commendable. In particular, the measures of border control have effectively prevented the spread of the epidemic.
Panic is the drive for all kinds of policies. Panic will also cause looting and shortage of anti-epidemic materials, making access even harder for the people and areas mostly in need. With the joint efforts of medical staff, governments, civil society, and vaccine research and development companies around the world, the epidemic has been brought under control. Although risks linger with the mutation of the virus, on the whole, the international community has begun to treat COVID-19 rationally by adapting to a society where a certain number of infected people still exist. People's personal hygiene habits (wearing masks, reducing unnecessary travel, and reducing exposure) have been reinforced, while management measures for public facilities such as schools, hospitals, churches, stadiums, theaters, and libraries have gradually formed.
With the joint efforts of global scientists and biopharmaceutical companies, the combat of humans against the spread of the virus has achieved considerable success. Vaccines are the main tool to stop the further spread of the COVID19 virus. By vaccinating a sufficient proportion of the population to gain immunity to infectious diseases, "herd immunity" can be achieved, thereby reducing the further spread of the epidemic from person to person. Most epidemiologists believe that, to achieve “herd immunity”, the proportion of vaccination should reach 60% to 90% of the population. Twelve vaccines have been approved for marketing worldwide by the end of June, 2021, including those pharmaceutical companies from the United States (Pfizer, Modena, Johnson & Johnson), Germany, the United Kingdom (AstraZeneca), Russia (Gamaria Research Institute, and Vector Research Center), China (Sinopharm, CanSino, BioNTech/Fosun JV) and India (Bharat). In 2021, the global vaccine production capacity is expected to reach 12 billion doses. China's vaccine production capacity is expected to reach 5 billion doses in 2022. With the increasing number of approved vaccines, the production capacity is expected to rise substantially.
In some countries, the spread of the COVID-19 virus has been basically under control. The medical system is capable of detecting, testing, isolating and treating every case and every close contact. In specific establishments such as hospitals and nursing homes, protective measures have been perfected to minimize the risk of outbreaks. At airports, railway stations, wharfs and other venues where overseas imports take place, the detection, protection and isolation measures are upgraded. Effective preventive measures have been taken in workplaces, schools and other places where people gather. And communities are fully aware of protective measures and have the ability to adapt to the "new normal." In some countries, schools, universities, bars, restaurants and cinemas, and certain international sports events have gradually resumed.
The total population of the world is settled. The proportion of the global population that needs to travel across borders can also be calculated. Therefore, the total demand for vaccines and the demand for cross-border vaccine certification are relatively certain. During H1 2021, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that 11 billion doses of vaccine are needed to inoculate 75% of the world’s population aged 5 and over. It is clear from the numbers in Graph 1 that the world’s leading vaccine producing countries would have difficulty supplying both their own populations and the remaining world’s needs based solely upon 2021 production.
In February, COVAX (the global procurement mechanism for COVID-19 vaccines to help protect the most at-risk groups in all participating countries) signed an MoU with the U.S. based vaccine manufacturer Novavax along with its Indian partner Serum Institute to receive 1.1 billion doses by year end 2021 in order to provide these vaccines to 92 low- and middle- income countries approved by the GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance) Board.4 In June, we saw the United States (U.S.) committed to distributing 500 million doses of U.S.-manufactured vaccines to lower income countries; the European Union (EU) followed days later with a commitment of 870 million doses, also before the end of 2022.5 China pledged to provide 2 billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines to the world and offered US$100 million to the COVAX throughout this year.6 There is still a huge gap between the vaccine demand (11 billion doses) and the available vaccine supply taking into account the contributions from the west (1.4 billion doses), China (2 billion doses) and from the COVAX scheme (1 billion doses).
As the scale of production expands, the gap between demand and supply will be narrowed. However, the urgency of people's demand for vaccines in different regions will fluctuate with the reemergence of the epidemic and the degree of control. People in well-controlled areas are not in a hurry to get vaccines, whereas in places of sudden outbreak and rapid spread of the epidemic, people's demand for vaccines will surge. In addition, if a large-scale epidemic occurs in a vaccine-producing country, the supply-demand relationship will be likely to change. For instance, if a large-scale epidemic occurred in India, India would have to stop part of its production, resulting in a short-term global supply shortage.
COVID-19 has spread almost all over the world. The proportion of people infected in developed countries is not less than that in developing countries. However, due to the relatively abundant medical resources in developed countries and the relatively strong social and economic resilience, the infected people have better access to treatment and thus greater chance of recovery. Likewise, the capacity of socio-economic recovery is also relatively strong. The epidemic may reshuffle the world economy. Some economies that have just improved may return to poverty due to the epidemic. These are not conducive to the recovery of the world economy. How to narrow the gap between developed and developing countries in their differentiated response to the epidemic is an important agenda for global governance. For example, how to make vaccines available and affordable to developing countries and how to overcome the immediate difficulties of developing countries through financial support and debt relief will be challenging.
The two-speed vaccination leave poor countries largely helpless in the emergence of increasingly dangerous variants. Despite their promises, rich countries have so far rarely shared their vaccines: of the 3.3 billion doses already administered, only 1% have been placed in the poorest countries. To vaccinate 70% of the planet - the theoretical threshold for herd immunity -around 11 billion doses are needed, but unless shared more equitably, this goal will not be achieved before 2023, according to the work of Duke Global Health Innovation Center in Durham, North Carolina.
A certain amount of reserve of anti-epidemic resources is a prerequisite for fighting the epidemic. However, COVID19 is a new virus, and once it spreads, it becomes an infectious disease on a global scale, and the reserves or redundancy of relevant epidemic prevention resources are far from sufficient. With certain achievements in epidemic prevention, the production and reserves of relevant anti-epidemic resources have begun to accumulate. But these resources are reserved in the hands of specific countries or related companies. Responding to the spread of the pandemic, especially the sudden outbreak in the weak areas of epidemic prevention, requires a systemic and effective allocation of anti-epidemic resources on a global scale. Only effective allocation of resources can achieve a multiplier effect with half the effort.
Developed countries have booked most of the world’s vaccines. "Rich countries accounting for 16% of the world's population have purchased 60% of the global vaccine supply." Insufficient production capacity has triggered a battle for vaccines. Countries such as the United States, the EU member states, the United Kingdom, Canada, among others, have ordered vaccines that are several times larger than their registered population. Vaccine procurement in low-and middle-income countries is seriously lagging behind. In 2021, COVAX, which aims to ensure fair and equitable access to vaccines in low-and middle-income countries, plans to provide 200 million doses of vaccines to 92 countries, and the delivery is set behind the schedule of developed countries. Middle-income countries actively raise vaccines through multiple channels, while the least developed countries and small countries are relatively vulnerable in the quest for vaccines.
Although the World Health Organization (WHO) has undergone a test in the face of this catastrophic epidemic and has done a lot of work, the functions and capabilities of the WHO are obviously not adequate to meet the global governance needs for epidemic prevention. Whether to bolster the authority and organizational capacity of the WHO, or to establish a global health emergency committee under the UN to strengthen political leadership remains a question. In addition, the stock of medical supplies needed to deal with the epidemic is still quite insufficient. The gap between global demand and international aid is also reflected in the question of how to provide funding for sustained preparedness and rapid response measures in low- and middle-income countries.
How to set up an international financing mechanism for epidemic prevention and response to help ease the burden of the future global health crisis is still a major issue. A high-level panel established by the G20 proposes a significant increase in global health financing to at least USD$75 billion, with one-third going to the WHO for research and development and the other two-thirds in establishing a new Global Health Threat Fund administered by the World Bank. 9 Global governance is a governance without government. When the epidemic breaks out, the negotiation and coordination between governments is far less timely and efficient than problem-solving within the jurisdiction of the country. For the time being, the national and global institutions established to deal with the pandemic are not suitable and adequate.
Frequent international exchanges are the main feature of today's world. Health governance is no longer an internal affair of a single country. Global health governance is intricately intertwined with factors such as economic integration, industrialization, urbanization, migration, ecological environment and even climate change. The transportation innovation and economic globalization have brewed cross-border health risks. There are more than 2 billion passengers taking international flights every year, and the virus can spread from one country to another in a very short time through convenient global transportation. The spread of infectious diseases and other diseases has become more and more complicated.
The outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020 highlighted the weakness of the international health governance. Many countries have returned to the framework of only paying attention to their own domestic epidemics and adopting their own policy tools. It should be recognized that these domestic self-protection measures of various countries have played an important role in controlling the spread of the epidemic, especially in the early stages of the outbreak, when human beings know little about the virus. Closing borders and restricting social activities have partially delayed the spread of the virus and bought time for medical institutions to obtain treatment plans and develop vaccines.
Nevertheless, if countries have concentrated too much on domestic self-protection and neglected the global common goal of fighting the epidemic, it would be difficult to achieve the ultimate goal of common safety and collective protection. By the second half of 2021, the drawbacks of neglecting and abandoning this common goal have already emerged. The depth and width of the world’s joint cooperation in response to the epidemic, apart from some efforts of information sharing, experience sharing, and material donations, are very limited. Facing the severe impact of the epidemic, the coordination mechanism of major powers with the G7 and G20 as the main platforms, and the global governance framework centered on the WHO have failed to play the due role. Based on the analysis of progresses and gaps in the previous section, we find that it is the time now to adjust and improve international cooperation by setting a global common goal.
From the perspective of goal-based governance, the global response to the COVID-19 epidemic should have two important measurement dimensions. The first measurement dimension is how to minimize the impact of the epidemic on the established global governance goals. For targets like the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), we must pay special attention to issues that may cause social collapse and short-term irreversible deterioration. From the perspective of the global economy and the achievement of the sustainable development goals established by the UN, the epidemic since 2020 and the measures taken to control the epidemic have severely affected the economic performance worldwide. Some of the original SDGs had to be delayed. In some regions where the economy and environment have started to improve, the situation has deteriorated again due to the repeated waves of the epidemic.
There has been massive unemployment around the world, with more than 100 million people returning to poverty, according to the World Bank’s estimation.10 Economic difficulties have led some countries to reduce green investment. Some developing countries have been suffering from economic contraction and debt crises, and serious problems have arisen in children’s education, basic health, and the prevention and treatment of other traditional infectious diseases. In some countries and regions, the outbreak of the epidemic and the measures taken to restrict social activities in response to the epidemic have caused long-term social adversity. In some Latin American countries, schools cannot be opened because of the epidemic. What’s more, due to technological hindrance, it is also unrealistic to implement online education there. If school-age children (including female ones) fail to enter school for several consecutive years, it may cause a generation to lose the opportunity to receive a good education and high-level labor training, leading to long-lasting harms to the economies. In short, judging from the above situation, the goals set for poverty eradication and green transformation in the UN SDGs may be postponed due to the spread of the epidemic. To this end, the UN should establish a special task force for further advancement of the SDGs, by means of making targeted initiatives and arrangements of the international cooperation to avoid irreversible deterioration caused by the epidemic.
The second important measurement dimension of goal-based governance is that under the premise that the epidemic is basically under control, the goal is to restore normal international exchanges at a suitable point of time, and set up priorities and international cooperation guidelines corresponding to this goal. After the goal is set, the effective allocation of resources and the best time schedule will improve the efficiency of governance and achieve the best governance effect. To achieve the effectiveness of governance, it is necessary to increase the "resilience" of the society against the impact of the epidemic. In response to the impact of the epidemic, the goal that human society must pursue is to restore a society that is functioning normally and is minimally disturbed by the epidemic. In a society with resilience, when the epidemic begins to break out and spread, the society has the capabilities to sense, track, and take measures to cease the spread of the virus. Should we continue to block borders between countries to control the spread of the virus, or reopen borders between countries to facilitate economic recovery?
This is always a dilemma. When will the border control measures come to an end? In the initial stage of dealing with infectious diseases, the first task is to control the spread of the virus and protect the safety of life. When people all over the world cannot maintain a normal life under the constant threat of the virus, this disaster triggered by the epidemic will turn into a global social and economic crisis. Therefore, when the vaccination rate reaches a certain percentage, and when the lethality rate of the virus is no longer as high as it was at the beginning, people trapped by the pandemic hope to return to normal social life, including reopening borders and resuming international travel.
Goal-based governance is an important path and method of global governance. By measuring our current and future work and tasks with goals, we can reformulate and adjust the agenda, content and methods of international cooperation. When consensus-based global goals are established, these goals can help us (1) Establishing priorities to be used in allocating both attention and scarce resources among competing objectives; (2) Galvanizing the efforts of those assigned to work toward attaining the goals associated with resultant priorities; (3) Identifying targets and providing yardsticks or benchmarks to be used to tracking progress toward achieving the goals, and (4) combating the tendency for short-term desires and impulses to distract the attention or resources of those assigned to the work of goal attainment.
If our goal is that more than 80% of the world’s population has been vaccinated and there are no large-scale cluster of outbreaks, all countries can respond quickly when the alarm is sounded, and international travel will be possible. Recovery, then the role of international organizations, as well as international cooperation, especially the cooperation of major powers in the world becomes crucial. This report attempts to enumerate some of the current priorities of international cooperation as follows. (1) Ensure that poor countries receive vaccines; (2) Reduce restrictions on vaccine import and export; (3) Look for suitable production sites outside developed countries that can reach the level of vaccine manufacturing technology; (4) While carrying out vaccination, continue to carry out vaccine research, evaluation and development to enhance the effectiveness and safety of vaccines; (5) Improve the rapid testing capabilities of poor countries; (6) Provide precise financing needed for the production of vaccines and rapid testing tools; (7) Expand anti-epidemic resource reserves to ensure the limited redundancy of anti-epidemic resources is fairly distributed and used on a global scale; (8) A global disease sensing and monitoring system must be established to ensure that the region and the WHO can obtain epidemic information in the shortest time.
Experts from the WHO can immediately guide the antiepidemic measures in the outbreaking area. In addition, there is an urgent need to increase investment in local, national, and regional health systems, especially those that currently lack the capacity for rapid detection and response. Under the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, G7, G20, and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), promoting financial support for global health is a priority for ensuring global health in the future. Global health governance should evolve from an inter-state cooperation mechanism to a multi-level and multiple governance system that includes governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises (health care industry).
With common goals and the priorities under the goals in place, people will be inspired making efforts to achieve the established priorities. Achieving a wider supply of global vaccines is our goal. The development of vaccines and the control of the epidemic are for the common interests of mankind. Although different countries have different technical conditions and the timing of obtaining vaccines varies from country to country, the access of vaccines and other anti-epidemic materials should become the basic rights and interests of people all over the world. Some western developed countries hope to gradually expand the benefits of vaccines on the basis of linking the distribution of rights and resources with the investment of resources. Goal-based incentives should strike a balance between "guaranteeing the basic rights of people around the world to obtain vaccines" and "obtaining an appropriate return on investment." Goal-based governance must take into account the expectations of vaccine-producing countries and vaccinedemanding countries, and it is necessary to strike a balance between the benefit of relevant vaccine manufacturers and making vaccines a public good. There must be fair care for the weak (relatively backward developing countries), responsibility requirements and necessary constraints for the strong (some developed countries), and the political demands of other participants (non-state actors) must be accommodated.
In the scenario of this report, there are two aspects of enthusiasm that should be protected and encouraged. One is that large countries should be encouraged to provide anti-epidemic materials, including vaccines, to foreign developing countries at lower prices or in the form of public good. One is that the role of non-state actors (capital owners, enterprises and non-governmental organizations) should be brought into play and encouraged. The WHO should consider the process of "promoting vaccines, diagnostic tools, and therapeutic materials to become public goods" after the Acceleration Plan for the New Coronary Pneumonia Tools (ACT). In order to enable people in low income countries to obtain vaccines and even free vaccine patents, the World Trade Organization and the WHO should convene major vaccine-producing countries to negotiate and reach an agreement on voluntary vaccine licensing and technology transfer. It is even possible to apply for a "compulsory license" in accordance with the "Trade related Intellectual Property Agreement" (TRIPS), that is, to ask the patent holder to give up the relevant intellectual property rights.
At the same time, we should give full play to the advantages of non-governmental organizations in respect of resources, concepts, and organizations, to supplement and improve the international mechanism for epidemic prevention and control, and ultimately achieve resource sharing, responsibility sharing, and cooperation and co-governance in the global infectious disease prevention and control process. The outbreak of the epidemic has exposed WHO's lack of authority, decision-making power, and coerciveness. Therefore, countries should be encouraged to provide more financial support to international health governance institutions such as the WHO. The WHO is financially tight and relies heavily on voluntary donations. These shortcomings weaken the decision-making power of the WHO. The WHO has very limited resources available to fight the epidemic, so it is difficult for it to coordinate collective actions by member states.
The third role of goal governance is to determine goals and provide standards or benchmarks for tracking the progress of achieving these goals. Based on the conclusions and conclusions of governments and world health experts over the past year or so, mankind has accumulated a considerable level of experience. We have summarized the following general standards or benchmarks based on goal-based governance ideas and needs. More detailed standards rely on experts in the field of anti-epidemic discussion and formulation. (1) Establish global technical indicators that need to be met to resume normal international exchanges. (2) Define the "COVID-19 susceptible area" and its response measures. (3) Determine the minimum safe amount of anti-epidemic material reserves in major regions. (4) Determine the global allocation authority for redundant anti-epidemic supplies and the division of labor among the main providers. (5) The speed and accuracy of higher-level screening and diagnosis. (6) Refined standards for the identification of medium and high risk areas by international organizations. (7) Global vaccine popularization roadmap: R&D (certification by international organizations)-production (property issues)-distribution (international approval)-effectiveness (assessment method). (8) 100% vaccination rate for airport, port and international transportation staff. (9) Technical standardsand operation guidelines for cleaning cross-border transportation vehicles. (10) Standards on the technology, environment, storage and transportation of vaccine production and distribution. (11) Establish a rescue mechanism to provide emergency anti-epidemic materials and vaccines to poor countries that have been severely hit by the epidemic.
From July to August 2021, the Tokyo Olympic Games, which was delayed for one year, could be held in Tokyo without spectators. The greatest significance of this Olympics is that it is a test of resuming international travel and hosting global international events during the epidemic. It is an actual test of the standards that should be met in all aspects listed above. The Tokyo Olympics Game plays a role of tests and trials for large-scale events on personnel, flights, isolation methods, accommodation management, diet, venue arrangements, and the arrangements of the isolation and quarantine for the athletes when they return home. It helps the international society to gain experience through testing and develop some procedures and standards.
The Beijing Winter Olympics in early 2022 will propose more complete standards and conduct effective tests on the basis of the Tokyo Olympics. The characteristics of the Olympics are that the delegations come from different countries but the number of people is limited, and the athletes live in a relatively closed environment during the event. On the basis of the Olympic Games, the international community in the future can obtain experience and formulate standards through testing of short-term normal international exchanges between two or more countries that have achieved epidemic control. The two or more countries participating in this test preferably have a medium-sized population, and they all have good technical conditions and meet the above-mentioned standards.
When a global and systemic goal is established, goal-based governance is to try to eliminate self-interested and shortterm behaviors that hinder the achievement of the goal. These behaviors will distract attention or resources that can help us achieve systemic goals. From this perspective, there are two aspects of self-interested and short-term behavior in the world today that are seriously dispersing the goals of fighting the epidemic and restoring normal social life and international exchanges. They are (1) vaccine nationalism and the imbalance in the distribution of international medical resources. During the COVID-19 epidemic, some developed countries monopolized vaccine production and procurement and implemented "vaccine nationalism" policies.
Medical equipment and health care resources are concentrated in developed countries, while the limited medical and health resources of the WHO are not enough to assist poor countries. The vaccine distribution gap between rich and poor countries has delayed global concerted anti-epidemic actions, leading to rampant variant viruses. The vaccine divide has also caused continuous outbreaks of new epidemics in developing countries, and eventually returned to developed regions where the situation has improved (such as China and the United States, which suffered from the outbreaks in August 2021 due to Delta variants). (2) In the process of fighting the epidemic, some big countries have tried their best to suppress other big countries from playing a role, worrying that other big countries will gain new influence through vaccine supply.
For example, the U.S. media described China's sharing of vaccines produced in China with some developing countries through the "Belt and Road" and other international cooperation platforms as "vaccine diplomacy with other purposes." For the purpose of geopolitical competition, some people in the United States and the Western world are constantly slandering China's experience and contributions in fighting the epidemic, and even rejecting the recognition of China's vaccines. This has caused the cooperation between major countries to "face the common challenges of the epidemic" to lose mutual trust. The self-interested and short-sighted behaviors of the United States and some Western countries have shaken the trust foundation for achieving the global anti-epidemic goal, distracted the attention of the anti-epidemic, and caused unreasonable resource allocation.
To achieve goal-based governance, it is necessary to eliminate geopolitical obstacles and put aside ideological hostility, and achieve the common goal of fighting the epidemic. Only in this way can it reflect the "solidarity, science and solutions" advocated by the WHO and form a cohesive international contract. Judging from its actions in response to the development of the global epidemic, the United States has so far focused its attention on the competitive relationship between the West and China, and the West and Russia. The United States has not only been distracted from the anti-pandemic by its competition with China and Russia, but it has also asked its allies to distract their attention from the epidemic. The United States and Europe still resisted vaccines produced in China. When the epidemic is surging, all the life-saving tools on the "ship of the world" are useful, and it is not necessary to distinguish whether they are tools from the East or from the West.
It is meaningful to help all qualified vaccines to improve their efficiency and safety, but it is meaningless to mobilize the power of allies to reject Chinese vaccines in all regions of the world. Judging from the global outbreak and the process of fighting the epidemic, the main contradiction in the future may still be the contradiction arising from the widening North-South gap. In the United States, Europe, East Asia, China, Japan and South Korea, the vaccination rate and the restoration of social order have given local people hope, while the epidemic in Latin America, South Asia, and Africa continues to expand. The Director-General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pointed out: “High-income countries accounting for 15% of the global population have received 45% of the global vaccine production, while residents of low-income countries accounting for about 50% of the global population received only 17% of the vaccine produced, while Africa only accounts for 1.8%.” Developed countries decided to vaccinate their people first and hoard a large number of vaccines for emergencies. On the other side of the world, poor countries have a large-scale out-of-control epidemic because they lack vaccines. The result will be "a new North-South division due to the uneven vaccine distribution." The deepening of the North-South contradictions in the world is not conducive to world peace and stability.
By Yang Jian, Henry Tillman, Zheng Jie and Ye Yu on September 28 2021 for China Investment Research.
