SHE Pod Season 2 Episode 6: Diego Silva on Olympians and the COVID Vaccine
12:08AM May 30, +0000
Speakers:
Kathryn MacKay
Diego Silva
Keywords:
olympians
athletes
olympics
laughs
sports
argument
individuals
pinnacle
queue
vaccine
australia
interest
conversation
people
1b
pandemic
ioc
controversial
rooms
absolutely
Hello, and welcome to the SHE Research Podcast. I'm your host, Kate MacKay. And today I'm joined by Diego Silva to discuss the topic of vaccinating Olympians ahead of certain other people in society. We're gonna be basing our conversation off of a piece that Diego wrote to the conversation, which is entitled, 'Even if Olympians are Jumping the COVID Vaccine Queue, That's Not Necessarily Wrong: A Bioethicist Explains'. Welcome, Diego.
(laughs). Hey, Kate.
How're you doing?
Yeah, I'm doing real well, how about you?
I'm good. And I'm looking forward to this conversation. Because I know that sports ethics is kind of a hobby area for you.
It is a hobby area. Yeah. Mainly, it means that I spend a lot of time doing it, even though I don't publish on it (laughs). I have these conversations in my head about it (laughs). Does that count?
Absolutely. Now you're having a conversation out loud. I wonder if you could start by telling our listeners... well, I guess what's the background of this situation?
Yeah. So I think as most people know, the Olympics are due to start July 23rd, I believe. And a lot of controversy around it, obviously, we're still in the midst of the pandemic. And the long and short of it is is that essentially, the Japanese public, the Japanese medical associations, public health in Japan does not want to have the Olympics. Because relative to other countries in Asia, they are faring not too well, again, relative to maybe the UK, US, India, they're okay. But relative to Taiwan, or South Korea, they're certainly not doing as well. And there's outbreaks in the prefectures in and around Tokyo. So despite that, the IOC and the Japanese delegation are full steam ahead. The IOC is instituting various sorts of protective measures, including the fact that athletes won't be able to mill about in the athletes village, which is one of the sort of the hallmarks for the athletes as well as going to the Olympics. So they have to stay in their rooms, they can only go out for specific reasons like training and whatnot. They can have food delivered to their rooms, but they can't go out at restaurants. So there's, they're constantly being tested, so on and so forth. So there are all these sortsof purported protections. But yeah, it's still controversial given the outbreak. And, and again, the idea of and we'll talk about this, but giving primacy to sports.
Yeah. I didn't realise that the Olympians would basically be in quarantine while they're there in their rooms. I mean, it's not quarantine. I'm misusing that word. But I didn't realise they'd be restricted to their rooms in that way.
Yeah, I mean, again, I can't remember offhand all the rules around it. But it's quite restrictive. And again, it's very different than other Olympics. Because when you read like the accounts, or when you hear about the accounts from the athletes about the Olympics, one of the things they really enjoy is the interaction with other athletes they normally wouldn't.
Yeah.
And so it's not going to be a regular Olympics for anyone, not only just because there's not going to be fans, or very few fans, if they do do that. But for the Olympians themselves, it's just going to be a very weird one.
Yes. And so a little bit of a controversy hass kicked off here in Australia, because the Australian government said that they would allow the Olympic athletes, the Australian Olympic team, to be vaccinated, basically ahead of their normal schedule. So the Olympians are usually young people, they would normally be - unless they had other things going on - probably last in the queue. And instead, they're being bumped up to... is it 1B, which is with health care workers and people who have other kinds of health factors, is that right?
Yeah. So they're, they're being bumped up. So these are... so first of all, it's not just the Olympian... Olympians themselves, but it's the team in the delegation itself. So in Australia, we have over-abundance of AstraZeneca vaccine because we're not inoculating anyone with A-Z below the age of 50. So it's not the issue isn't so much sort of the the coaches and those individuals who are older, but certainly the vast majority of the individuals are going to be athletes, and they're gonna be vying for the Pfizer vaccine, which we don't have an abundance. So they're placed now - thaey would otherwise be sort of very last in the queue - and they're now being placed with 1B as you, as you mentioned. So that includes healthcare workers who aren't... who are deemed not to be sort of front and centre in the pandemic. So, general practitioners, other doctors that aren't necessarily working in ERs or ICUs but it also includes individuals who have risk factors for either a risk of infection or risk of... higher than normal risk of hospitalisation and whatnot, so they're being placed with those individuals. And I guess the other sort of thing for the listener, again, for those outside of Australia, is the fact that the vaccine rollout in Australia has been, I think, most countries, but it's been particularly controversial here. It's been very slow moving. It's been very chaotic, very opaque, even to the states themselves. So there's a lot of already hesitanc-..., not hesitancy on the part of individuals, although that exists as well. But sort of just there's been a lot of back and forth between the states and the Commonwealth Government.
Right. Yeah. And so in this COVID piece, sorry, this Conversation piece, you have argued that it's not necessarily a problem, that the Olympians are queue-jumping, if I can put it in the most controversial way possible. So tell us, what's your... not... you don't have to tell us what your whole argument is. But sort of what are the two sides of this dilemma?
Well, I think first of all, and I approved of the headline, but the headline was clickbait.
(laughs)
So my conclusion is, is I don't think they ought to be prioritised at 1B.
Right.
And that's very, very clear in the article.
Yes.
So the the balance, though, is, and I think one of the things that we don't hear enough about in the public media when we're talking about Australian athletes, or athletes in general, is the interests... there's an interest base argument... in it, I think it goes something like sort of the very sort of skeletal version is: we as human beings, right, we put emphasis on trivial pursuits, right. So obviously rethink - and this is salient - but life and those things that are needed to sustain life are given primacy. But we put a lot of stock in the arts and in sports and other things that aren't necessary for life that make life worth living. So I think that's descriptively true, human beings do this. But I also think that we can think back to many philosophers all the way back to the ancient Greeks, who make exactly this sort of argument as well. And so I think that when you couple that, with the amount of effort, with the fact that these are rarefied athletes, with the fact that the Olympics only occur every four years... well, you know, summer and winter, sort of taking turns. For many individuals, this is the one opportunity to go to the Olympics, this is something that they've worked very hard at. It's the pinnacle of their pursuit, it's the pinnacle of their interest or fulfilling their interest. So I think that as a society, we ought to support them as much as possible. And again, I think that's... this... I think a similar argument can be made in terms of the arts, or in terms of, again, other things that aren't necessarily education or healthcare, stuff like that. So I think, I think that needs to be balanced, again, against the health and well being of individuals and society. So when you look at the individuals in 1B doctors, nurses, individuals with conditions that make them more susceptible to nasty versions of COVID, then I think the Olympians ought not to be prioritised. So I think what the government did was wrong. But I do think that they should be prioritised over say, you and me Kate.
What do you mean?
(laughs) Right, like, like, you know, essentially the, you know, people who are sitting behind a desk, you know, generally healthy, so on and so forth, we can pursue our interests without, you know, putting ourselves too great at that risk. So in that case, I think that they, you know, even if they're younger and healthier and whatnot, I think they ought to receive the vaccine. So I think that they should be prioritised, but not at the 1B, not at the expense of of what's good for humanity.
It's really interesting, because I think one question I would have for you is sort of like, in general, I'm quite happy to accept my place at the end of the queue. Sort of knew all along that I would be at the end of the queue. But when we start to talk about interests, it makes me think that the the interest that I or anyone else might have in travel, for example, to see family, and there are lots of people who have had to travel to see family, including a tonne of people in India right now who have been... sort of gotten stuck there because of the government's decisions. I feel like their -
Their atrocious decisions.
Their atrocious decisions. Absolutely. I feel like their interests in seeing family are actually stronger than another... any other person's interests in... in their trivial pursuits, no matter how otherwise valuable we might think those pursuits are. So I think that the arts and sports are worthwhile. But I don't think that they're, as you said, kind of more worthwhile, then other sorts of goods that we have. And I do think that interest in visiting family abroad might be more worthy. So do you think then... I don't know if you would agree with that. And then my second question would be, if it were the case, then would anyone who wanted or had a, you know, anyone who has an interest in going abroad to see family, could they get bumped up in the queue, as well?
So I think when I was writing the piece, and I think, any sort of quick reflection, when you're making exceptions to the rules, all of a sudden, all of a sudden mushrooms very, very quick.
(laughs).
Right> So I think that's what you're pointing towards. And I think absolutely, it gets really problematic really quickly, to answer your question directly. But actually, no, before answering your question directly, I think that there's travel, and then there's travel to see family. So I still think that, you know, it's travel onto itself shouldn't be the demarcation of sort of queue jumping, again, to use that idea. I think visiting family is kind of really interesting. I kind of would be in favour of the athletes over... over sort of leaving to see family and maybe, you know, let's not get Freudian about all this.
(laughs).
But I think that I think, again, to go back to how rare it is, to do this, like, this is the pinnacle for many individuals. I mean, there's an argument to say that the the Olympics are the pinnacle of sports, period. Right? It's certainly the pinnacle of many of the actual events within the Olympics. Again, it's so rare to do that. And these individuals have worked so hard to do that, that it's not to say that visiting family abroad isn't important. I think, an interesting twist on what you're saying, Kate is, what if you need the vaccine in order to see somebody who's sick or dying? And in that case, I think, again, in the sort of hierarchy of needs or hierarchy of interest, then I would say that would sort of trump the athlete again, you know, that, that, to me seems at least intuitively plausible. And I believe the Australian government is doing that actually.
Oh okay.
Actually, don't don't quote me on that. But... but yeah, I think that there's something about the fact that it's such a rare pursuit, and it's very much the pinnacle, and it's something that we, I mean, the other aspect is, is that as a, as a society, I think we do, and we should sort of celebrate the best of the best at things. Now, that's assuming that the thing itself is worth pursuing (laughs). Right? We can get into the classics, you know, you know, you don't want to like celebrate the best serial killer or anything of that sort, right?
(laughs)
You know, repugnant desires or anything of that sort, but-
And I mean, on the Olympics, theres been some controversial additions.
There have, there have, and it tests my limits (laughs).
I think an interesting example, actually is golf.
(laughs)
And I bring up golf not to pick on golfing or golfers
Oh we can pick on golfers (laughs).
But to say that there are some sports like the like diving and gymnastics and track sports and those sorts of things where the the Olympics really does seem like it's the pinnacle. But that does not seem to be true for golf and certain other of the sports that are professionalised. So, there seems to be, I mean, this might get us a little off track, but I think if we were going to talk about people really, it's absolutely true that Olympians work so hard for their sport, but some of those Olympians - and this has been a long running debate - have professional organisations and actually more money and like an income on through their sport itself and others are more amateur, but I don't say that in any...
No, no, no, yeah .
Yeah, I don't say that in a disrespectful way. It's just that it hasn't been professionalised. So I actually would even maybe split the sports (laughs).
I wholeheartedly agree. Yeah, I mean, you know, golf, what the hell?
(laughs).
But apart from golf. Yeah, I think basketball is a really clear example of what you're describing. I mean, I love basketball and I love to see basketball in the Olympics, but you could very well argue that it's certainly not the pinnacle of their sport. And you know, soccer would sort of be the very same
Oh, yeah right.
So there's there's a, there's a slew of very prominent sports that I think fall into the category. So, yeah, I think this is where the sort of ideal versus non-ideal world situation would come in. Yeah, I think that the argument that you're making can be made if we were to go one by one...
Right.
I think that in reality, sort of maybe, you know, setting that cut-off is going to be difficult. Certainly controversial. And I think that for the most part, the vast majority of the athletes there, although you could argue that like soccer and, and basketball or team sports, and they actually have huge delegations onto themselves. But setting that aside, I think for the vast majority, it is the pinnacle. Right? So track and field, for example, they have World Championships every year. They have the Diamond League events, a very important... the very top athletes in track and field make make money, but the vast majority don't.
Right.
I think that on the whole, I would still sort of say it should... but yeah, I think your argument still stands.
Yeah. So let's let me ask you one more question about the Olympics itself. Should it go ahead?
Absolutely not.
(laughs).
No, it shouldn't? It shouldn't go ahead. Because I think there's a number of sort of overlapping reasons, you could argue that it's actually morally over-determined that it ought not to go ahead. So first of all, you have a population or citizen... residents of Japan who don't want this to go ahead. It's, you know, we're in the middle of a pandemic. I think that's not an argument. That's a statement.
(laughs).
But you know, so I think that, look, I think that we're in a situation that is not unprecedented, but certainly unprecedented in this version of modernity, that we're living in. And so I think that as a whole, given the risks, so to me, I guess I come back to the risks of harm that can come about. So I have no doubt that the IOC is going to do its best to protect the... both Japan and the athletes. But just simple, you know, mathematics, just simple. You know, factorial math will tell you that this virus is going to spread. And it's one thing for Australian athletes to be coming back to Australia. It's another for athletes from low and middle income countries returning to low and middle income countries.
Right. Yeah.
Which may not have the infrastructure, well, you know may not have the infrastructure that that we have here. You know, even even high income countries that have more porous borders, right, we can think of Canada.
Yeah.
So I think that it's not just the the... the potential for harm is going to be there. And I think that, given the variance of concerns that exist, given the strains that are out there, we ought to have, we ought to give vaccines the opportunity to do the thing that they're there to do. So I think, if anything, and this is kind of this... you didn't ask this, but like I think if anything, this is an indictment... like on yet another much lesser indictment on the powers that be in global health. Right? If we would have done even a remotely equitable job rolling out vaccines, it might be actually a different argument altogether. Maybe not. Right? But you know, what, what would it look like if Australia and Canada gave its excess AstraZeneca vaccines to low and middle income countries and their athletes or, you know, to the populations in general? Like, so I think this conversation will look vastly different. And just goes to the complexity of global health and the knock-on effects. Again, that's kind of an aside, but I think it's relevant.
Absolutely. Thanks so much for talking with me about this. Diego, there's so much to say. And that's been a really fun conversation.
Yeah, absolutely. My pleasure.
Thanks so much for listening to this episode of the SHE Research Podcast. You can find Diego's conversation piece,linked in this episode's notes, along with the transcript of our podcast. SHE Pod is hosted by me, Kathryn MacKay and produced by Madeline Goldberger. You can find our other podcasts on Spotify, Radio Public, Anchor or wherever else you get your podcasts of quality. Thanks again for listening. Bye