Jump to content

User:BD2412/Vaccine law resources/2021 unsorted-c

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • WHO, No-fault compensation programme for COVID-19 vaccines is a world first (22 February 2021) News release
    • WHO and a Chubb Limited subsidiary "signed an agreement on behalf of the COVAX Facility on 17 February 2021 for the administration of a no-fault compensation programme for the 92 low- and middle-income countries and economies eligible for support via the Gavi COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC) of the COVAX Facility".
    • "financed initially through Gavi COVAX AMC donor funding".

92 Gavi COVAX AMC-eligible countries and economies (based on 2018 and 2019 World Bank GNI data)

  • Low income: Afghanistan, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Dem. Rep., Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, The Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Korea, Dem. People's Rep., Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Yemen, Rep.,
  • Lower-middle income: Angola, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bolivia, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Comoros, Congo, Rep. Côte d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Arab Rep., El Salvador, Eswatini, Ghana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyz Republic Lao PDR, Lesotho, Mauritania, Micronesia, Fed. Sts., Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, São Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vietnam, West Bank and Gaza, Zambia, Zimbabwe
  • Additional IDA eligible: Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Guyana, Kosovo, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Samoa, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Tonga, Tuvalu.

Of the 80* potentially self-financing countries that have expressed written interest in the Gavi COVAX Facility, 44* have agreed to be named publicly:

Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Palau, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, Venezuela.

  • Edited 21 August 2020: Updated to reflect latest info on countries that have agreed to be named publicly.


  • WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO): 8 Vaccines Approved for Use by WHO (last updated 16 November 2021):
    • Moderna, mRNA-1273, 76 countries; 32 trials in 8 countries
    • Pfizer/BioNTech, BNT162b2, 103 countries; 45 trials in 21 countries
    • Janssen (Johnson & Johnson), Ad26.COV2.S, 76 countries; 16 trials in 18 countries
    • Oxford/AstraZeneca, AZD1222, 124 countries; 49 trials in 23 countries
    • Serum Institute of India, Covishield (Oxford/AstraZeneca formulation), 46 countries; 2 trials in 1 country
    • Bharat Biotech, Covaxin, 10 countries; 7 trials in 1 country
    • Sinopharm (Beijing), BBIBP-CorV (Vero Cells), 68 countries; 17 trials in 10 countries
    • Sinovac, CoronaVac, 42 countries; 26 trials in 8 countries
[edit]
  • Fiona W. Ong, Federal Appeals Court Upholds State Vaccine Mandate Without Religious Exemptions (October 29, 2021)
    • First Cir. says: “When a religiously neutral and generally applicable law incidentally burdens free exercise rights, we will sustain the law against constitutional challenge if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.” No Free Exercise violation, no Title VII violation
    • Opinion: Does 1-6 v. Mills, No. 21-1826 (1st Cir., Oct. 19, 2021)
      • No case in this circuit and no case of the Supreme Court holds that a single objective exemption renders a rule not generally applicable. See Maryville Baptist Church, Inc. v. Beshear, 957 F.3d 610, 614 (6th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) ("As a rule of thumb, the more exceptions to a prohibition, the less likely it will count as a generally applicable, non-discriminatory law.").
      • "Stemming the spread of COVID–19 is unquestionably a compelling interest . . . ." Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn, 141 S. Ct. at 67; see also Workman v. Mingo Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 419 F. App'x 348, 353 (4th Cir. 2011) ("[T]he state's wish to prevent the spread of communicable diseases clearly constitutes a compelling interest."). Few interests are more compelling than protecting public health against a deadly virus.
      • When a free exercise challenge fails, any equal protection claims brought on the same grounds are subject only to rational-basis review. Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712, 720 n.3 (2004); Wirzburger v. Galvin, 412 F.3d 271, 282 (1st Cir. 2005). As the appellants are unlikely to succeed on their free exercise claims, they are unlikely to succeed on their equal protection claims as well.
        The appellants' Supremacy Clause argument rests on their assertion that the hospitals (in concert with the state appellees) have "claim[ed] that the protections of Title VII are inapplicable in the State of Maine." The record simply does not support that argument. The parties agree that Title VII is the supreme law of the land; the hospitals merely dispute that Title VII requires them to offer the appellants the religious exemptions they seek. See Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 281-83 (1987) (describing "narrow scope" of preemption under Title VII). The appellants have not shown their entitlement to an injunction under the Supremacy Clause.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:BD2412/Vaccine_law_resources/2021_unsorted-c&oldid=1057970947"