How the Pandemic Changed Our View of Government Essay

Introduction

Based on the reported distribution of COVID-19 vaccine deployment, a discriminatory pattern was obvious, with impoverished nations reporting inadequate availability of quality vaccination compared to developed countries. This essay looks into the gaps in the healthcare sectors that may have led to the bias in vaccine deployment in developing and impoverished areas with restricted access. The goal is to reply to a question that should give a view on future approaches to public health through introspection and self-interoperability among professionals. How has the epidemic altered our perceptions of our government, the outside world, and even one another? Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, worldwide societies have faced unforeseen suffering, affecting all levels of government and residents economically, socially, and individually. With the increasing concerns over cases of discrimination hindering the quality of public health care, professionals in the sector must appreciate the merits of self-introspection and reflection in guaranteeing quality patient-centered support.

The Significant Role of Public Health Systems in Communities

Public health systems are crucial in handling pandemics like COVID-19 and protecting community health and safety. A functioning public health sector controls disease transmission by tracking, recognizing, and implementing control measures (Torri et al., 2020). In the context of a pandemic, extensive professional guidance in healthcare providers may help educate the population about the virus, provide quality treatment, and provide mental health and social support (Aruru et al., 2021). Similarly, public health systems are in charge of ensuring the equitable and efficient provision of vaccinations, which is crucial in reducing the development of COVID-19 (Ostropolets et al., 2022). However, as with any other public health resource, unconscious biases such as race, age, gender identification and expression, religious group, ethnicity, sexual preference, socioeconomic status, ability, and so on can be harmful because they occur in the background of our minds, leaving us unaware of how we make judgments based on our bias.

Exposed Bias In Global Vaccine Distribution

In the context of the COVID-19 outbreak, public health interventions have shown biases founded in a predisposition to deliver vaccinations to wealthier countries that can afford to pay for them. Studies show that vaccine deployment has been a key step in limiting the virus’s spread and protecting susceptible groups (Rapaka et al., 2022). The uneven distribution of vaccinations, on the other hand, has highlighted the need for ethical reassessment within the healthcare industry. The uneven distribution of vaccinations has been ascribed mostly to institutional biases within healthcare institutions. Economic inequality, institutional racism, and unequal access to healthcare are examples of these prejudices (Nuwarda et al., 2022). These variables have prioritized certain groups over others, resulting in uneven vaccination distribution. In such circumstances, it is crucial to acknowledge that biases are a natural part of being human. However, it is also critical to recognize and act to mitigate them to maintain a fair allocation of public health resources, even during pandemics.

Evidence of Vaccine Marketers Prioritizing Developed Countries

For example, affluent countries have gotten many vaccinations, while poorer countries have been forced to make do with insufficient supply. Concerns concerning inequity have generated ethical questions about the obligation of wealthy nations to help underdeveloped countries in most investigations on instances of socioeconomic bias in vaccination dissemination (Torri et al., 2020). In most settings, researchers see a recurring trend of requests to ensure that immunizations are available to everybody, regardless of the economic situation (Aruru et al., 2021). These findings show that institutional racism and discrimination against underprivileged populations have contributed to vaccination hesitation and reluctance. As a result, vaccinations are distributed and accessed unequally, putting disadvantaged communities at risk of illness.

Inadequacies in the Current World Health Organization Interventions

There have been several interventions that have been proposed and implemented in improving the distribution of vaccines across the worlds. However, significant inequities have been noted despite attempts by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) program to provide fair and equitable vaccination delivery worldwide. Based on research, Africa has the lowest COVID-19 vaccine distribution as of December 2021, with just 6% of its inhabitants fully vaccinated, contrasted to 49% in Europe and 51% in North America (Md Khairi et al., 2022). Asian and Middle Eastern developing nations likewise have lower vaccination rates, with just 20% and 18% of their people completely vaccinated, respectively (Md Khairi et al., 2022). These differences have been ascribed to various variables, including a lack of vaccination supply, distribution issues, and vaccine reluctance.

Recommended Intervention in Mitigating Discrimination in Public Health

Discrimination in the healthcare system is a widespread issue that must be tackled to provide universal healthcare access. Self-reflection and ethical awareness are key skills for reducing prejudice in public health, especially during the COVID-19 deployment. Based on the present deficiencies in professional public health support administration, self-introspection is proposed as one of the crucial steps in maintaining a collective sense of duty for justice as sector employees (Rapaka et al., 2022). In such a context, effective self-introspection is required to recognize any biases within oneself. Researchers appreciate that humans are prone to conscious or unconscious biases that can impact decision-making processes as individuals. Professionals may endeavor to reduce bias and promote equal access to healthcare by reflecting on their biases and how they may affect relationships with colleagues and the general public.

Need for Ethical Awareness

Addressing inequality in public health requires ethical awareness as well. Ethical concepts such as autonomy, beneficence, and justice should govern clinical decision-making, especially in the context of the COVID-19 deployment. Individual freedom entails respecting people’s choices, whereas beneficence entails fostering persons’ well-being. In the context of a pandemic, when vulnerable communities are frequently the most impacted, justice necessitates a fair distribution of healthcare resources. As in most settings, to ensure maximum performance, it is critical to recognize and correct any biases within the public health system (Torri et al., 2020). For instance, the healthcare system’s previous abuse of vulnerable people has resulted in a lack of trust, which can increase gaps in access to care. Recognizing and eliminating these biases within the healthcare system is critical to fostering equal care delivery.

Revaluation of Sector Needs Practices and Policies

It is vital to recognize that to resolve these ethical problems, the healthcare sector’s procedures and rules must be reviewed. Developing equitable vaccination distribution methods that target disadvantaged communities, ensuring that vaccines are available and cheap to all, and addressing the core causes of institutional racism and prejudice are all examples of such intervention (Nuwarda et al., 2022). When adopting such interventions, healthcare practitioners and governments must ensure that the vaccination rollout process is transparent and that decisions are based on scientific evidence rather than political or commercial motives. This will aid in developing public trust in the healthcare system and ensuring that vaccinations are provided fairly and equally.

As previously stated, the COVID-19 epidemic has dramatically influenced our perceptions of our government, the outside world, and one another. It has stressed the significance of competent leadership and governance, pointing out that countries with strong leadership performed better in managing the virus. The epidemic has also emphasized our world’s interdependence and the importance of international collaboration. Nevertheless, the crisis has fostered a sense of solidarity and shared responsibility while highlighting socioeconomic disparities and the need for social justice. These lessons will be essential in determining professional responses to future crises and constructing a more resilient and fairer world.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown severe vulnerabilities in the healthcare sector, contributing to vaccination bias, with developing nations and impoverished groups reporting restricted availability of quality vaccines. The pandemic has also underlined the need for public health systems to control pandemics and safeguard community health and safety. Nevertheless, unconscious prejudices based on color, age, gender identity and expression, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, financial position, aptitude, and other factors have caused harm and led to prioritizing certain groups, resulting in unequal vaccination distribution. As a result, self-introspection and ethical awareness are required to reduce prejudice in public health and promote fair access to healthcare. Recognizing and resolving biases is critical to ensuring that public health resources, including vaccinations, are allocated fairly and equitably, especially in pandemics like COVID-19. Future studies should address the need to inculcate emotional intelligence and best practices in self-reflection, improve self-discipline, and raise awareness to optimize professionalism within the healthcare sector.

References

Aruru, M., Truong, H. A., & Clark, S. (2021). Pharmacy Emergency Preparedness and Response (PEPR): A proposed framework for expanding pharmacy professionals’ roles and contributions to emergency preparedness and response during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 17(1), 1967-1977. Web.

Md Khairi, L. N. H., Fahrni, M. L., & Lazzarino, A. I. (2022). The race for global equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccines, 10(8), 1306. Web.

Nuwarda, R. F., Ramzan, I., Weekes, L., & Kayser, V. (2022). Vaccine hesitancy: Contemporary issues and historical background. Vaccines, 10(10), 1595. Web.

Ostropolets, A., Ryan, P. B., Schuemie, M. J., & Hripcsak, G. (2022). Characterizing anchoring bias in vaccine comparator selection due to health care utilization with COVID-19 and influenza: observational cohort study. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 8(6), e33099. Web.

Rapaka, R. R., Hammershaimb, E. A., & Neuzil, K. M. (2022). Are some COVID-19 vaccines better than others? Interpreting and comparing estimates of efficacy in vaccine trials. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 74(2), 352-358. Web.

Torri, E., Sbrogiò, L. G., Di Rosa, E., Cinquetti, S., Francia, F., & Ferro, A. (2020). Italian public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic: Case report from the field, insights, and challenges for the Department of Prevention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), 3666. Web.