After a long wait, South Sudan finally received doses of the coronavirus vaccine that came in two shipments. The first consignment was facilitated by the government through the Ministry of Health. The second was procured by MTN in partnership with the African Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.
Prior to the arrival of the vaccine, it was rumoured that frontline workers would be the first priority. That quickly changed when more than a million doses were stocked. It was the presidency that would supposedly get the first jab.
In a show of ignorance about the type of vaccine procured and its efficacy, health personnel were summoned for a presentation whose outcome dented the initial arrangement of giving jabs starting from the presidium.
After the meeting, the Presidential Press Unit said the president okayed the vaccination programme as initially planned.
“President Salva Kiir accepted the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine for South Sudan and urged the Ministry of Health & national taskforce to continue with their plans to officially launch the mass vaccination against Covid-19 to help protect the people of South Sudan,” read the statement.
But the outcome of the meeting did not explicitly state the starting point of the vaccination campaign. It was equally silent on which group gets it first between the presidency and frontline workers.
Mounting fears
Of all the COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, the Oxford-AstraZeneca has led the race in controversy. Its efficacy remained questionable. Some health experts also say the vaccine results into blood clotting leading to death.
AstraZeneca is currently suspended in most European countries, including France and Germany for certain age groups. The European bloc says data from the company about the efficacy of the vaccine on people over the age of 60 was lacking.
But the vaccine manufacturer repeatedly denied that blood clotting, including in the brain, was not related to the vaccine. However, people who experience such symptoms did so after getting their jabs.
“We are confident this vaccine can play an important role in protecting millions of people worldwide against this lethal virus,” Mene Pangalos, Executive Vice President of Biopharmaceuticals Research for AstraZeneca was quoted by DW to have said.
That doesn’t put an end to a wave of controversies which engulfed AstraZeneca since its inception earlier this year. In February, when South Africa secured their doses, the vaccine was found to be largely ineffective on new variants. Even worse, the expiry period was in April 2021. Let that settle in.
In attempts to persuade African countries to accept the vaccine, the World Health Organization dismissed any report of inefficacy and blood clotting resulting from the vaccine.
“We do not want people to panic and we would, for the time being, recommend that countries continue vaccinating with AstraZeneca,” WHO Chief Scientist Soumya Swaminathan said earlier March.
AstraZeneca is among few vaccines made widely available for African countries due to its affordability. Whoever says cheap things are as cheap as they appear probably doesn’t know the hidden price tag.
Vaccines with over 75% effective rate like Pfizer BioN-Tech, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna, are mostly available in American and European countries.
Back to AstraZeneca, the shifting of goal posts by the South Sudan government is not a surprising phenomenon. Officials are armed with information on the alleged inefficacy of the vaccine and its probable side effects.
Citizens cannot be a priority at this time for the reason that they need to be sensitised about the vaccine and what it does to the body. Convincing them would be a daunting task if they do not that a prominent figure has taken the vaccine to set precedence.
Like Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy. The true neighbour will risk his position, his prestige, and even his life for the welfare of others”.