can't help wondering who the 'Alan' is to whom your email is addressed seems a perfect subliminal reflex (I won't say knee jerk response) ...
as ever B On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 13:26, Ted Byfield <tedbyfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alan, your question seems right on. I think there's an answer — it's just > not very satisfying. > > It's standard fare (with good reason) to note that the maldistribution of > global healthcare, from R&D through everyday practices, benefits the global > north at the expense of the global south. This criticism has been > especially prominent in a few areas like HIV/AIDS and (not coincidentally) > vaccine research. As you and everyone else who will read this almost > certainly know, quite a bit of pharma research is conducted in > less-developed countries (i.e., *on people in LDCs*), but when it comes > time to make the resulting products available, the debate mysteriously > shifts — to the need to amortize R&D costs, corporate rights to profit, > etc, etc. So there are valid arguments to be made about colonialism (and > therefore imperialism) in the context of pharma. > > The problem comes when those decades-old, generic arguments are applied in > new contexts. Admittedly, 'new' has a pretty woolly meaning here, but you > kinda now it when you see it. For example, ebola may be ancient, but the > threat it poses in the context of globalization — largely thanks to > aviation — are new. No one in their right mind would argue that ebola > should have been deliberately transported to the EU or US so we could make > sure that candidate vaccines are tested 'equitably.' The risks outside of > narrow confines of testing are too extreme, so candidates were mainly > tested in situ — and, crucially, *the vaccines were deployed in situ*. > (I'll ignore the fact that OF COURSE there are samples of it and other > pathogens in 'secure' facilities, often quasi-military.) > > SARS-CoV-2 moved too quickly to be isolated 'like' ebola, so the challenge > it presented was genuinely global — and the same is true for the vaccine > research, in part because national regulatory structures around the world > adapted quickly. Upshot: candidate vaccines were tested much more widely > than usual, in LDCs as well as WEIRD countries, and anywhere else that > worked. And yet the global south, which has played a decisively important > role in helping everyone to understand SARS-CoV-2, has gotten screwed in a > familiar range of ways (not just access). So, again, there are valid > grounds to talk about colonialism (and therefore imperialism) in the > context of Covid-related pharma. > > But, as you note, the moment someone starts to talk about "provax" > imperialism, everything turns upside-down and backwards. I think I get the > general argument (not yours), that the West's overall pro-vaccine stance is > part and parcel of a larger ideological front — a double bind that both > valorizes vaccinations then denies access to them — and that that morally > untenable position is continuous with 'imperialism.' But, as you suggest, > the more pressing issue — as measured by populations sickened or dying from > Covid. That's a lot more compelling than some vast schematic criticism > untethered from any practical solution, like better access to vaccines and > healthcare. > > Cheers, > Ted > > > On 20 Jan 2022, at 12:30, Ana Teixeira Pinto wrote: > > > What is "pro-vax imperialism"? To what concrete, real, policy does this > > term apply? It seems to suggest that vaccines are being foisted on the > > global south when the actual problem is hoarding... > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 6:06 PM Ted Byfield <tedbyfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> This kind of 'concern trolling'–esque appropriation of leftish discourse > >> in the service of rightish agendas is becoming pervasive in the US at > least > >> — and elsewhere, I'm sure, albeit with less detail. > >> > >> As with most of these discursive tendencies it's first and foremost > >> impersonal, which can make it hard to counter without opening oneself > up to > >> charges of relying on ad hominem. I think that helps to account for its > >> rise as a rhetorical strategy: it 'works' mainly because it lays basis > for > >> a scripted form of pseudo-argument — pious platitudes about science, > >> openness, debate, democracy, whatever. But, as I think you suggest, > >> Florian, it would be a serious mistake to see it as merely rhetorical: > it > >> has concrete consequences. > >> > >> It might be useful to think of this turn in terms of rightist > >> 'culture-jamming,' 'overidentification,' and related ideas. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Ted > >> > >> On 20 Jan 2022, at 7:00, Florian Cramer wrote: > >> > >>>> - Government propaganda and censorship around lockdown and vaccination > >>>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>> - The role of mass and social media in anti- or pro-lockdown or > vaccine > >>>> propaganda, political polarization and forms of media virality (eg. > via > >>>> covid-19 memes) > >>>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>> - Mandatory vaccine rollouts as assaults to the feminist appeal to > >> bodily > >>>> autonomy > >>>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>> - Ethical considerations regarding mass experimentation, moral shaming > >> and > >>>> lateral citizen surveillance > >>>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>>> - Teleological and theological narratives of science as salvation (eg. > >> via > >>>> vaccinations) > >>> > >>> > >>> All beautiful examples of a "Querfront" discourse where extreme right > >>> positions are packaged in left-wing rhetoric. Not a single point, > >> however, > >>> on minorities and vulnerable people and communities endangered by > >>> anti-vaccer egoism, and neo-Darwinist politics - for example in the UK, > >>> Sweden and the Netherlands, of "herd immunity" through survival of the > >>> fittest. > >>> > >>> You should invite Dutch experts Willem Engel and Thierry Baudet as > >> keynote > >>> speakers. > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: -- Bronaċ
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
