The inequitable delivery of vaccines in the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vaccines have been shown to be effective at curbing infection rates and significantly lowering the risk of hospitalization and ICU admission. During the most recent outbreak of the Omicron variant, COVID-19 vaccines, especially after three doses, have continued to offer strong protection in minimizing hospitalization and ICU admission. The most effective protection is achieved through widespread population vaccine uptake. While there has been strong uptake in many high-income countries —including Canada, where 78.7% of the total population is fully vaccinated with at least two doses— limited supply and access in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has hindered similar populationlevel protection.For example, only 10% of people in African countries are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (received at least two doses) and approximately 1.2 billion people in African countries have not received a single dose. Given the importance of an effective global response to the COVID-19 pandemic, this article explores the implications of the key legal, economic, and sociocultural factors, as well as features of the vaccine roll-out that are driving vaccine inequity. Potential options for policymakers to make vaccine access more equitable domestically and internationally are also suggested in this review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".