People in poorer countries need a first jab much more than we need a third. By turning it down, we can all make a point, says Christopher Cheetham
As your editorial on sharing vaccines with poorer countries points out (19 September), we know that two doses do not guarantee protection against an infection, but we do know that they make a serious infection extremely unlikely. A first or second jab is of much greater benefit than a third one, protecting against serious illness, mortality and further transmission. Those outside the rich world are not being protected because of scarcity of supply. Their first or second jabs must have priority over our third.
Politicians may find this policy difficult, fearing critics who might accuse them of giving “our” benefit to foreigners. There is a simple solution. We should decline this third immunisation. I, a healthy pensioner who has had two doses, have refused the third jab, asking for it to be sent to those who will benefit more, and I invite others to do the same. This is not simply altruistic ;limiting the extent of the pandemic is an advantage to all of us.
Christopher Cheetham
Yatton, Somerset
