  The global SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted the challenge of
equitable vaccine distribution between high- and low-income countries. Many
high-income countries were reluctant or slow to distribute extra doses of the
vaccine to lower-income countries via the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access
(COVAX) collaboration. In addition to moral objections to such vaccine
nationalism, vaccine inequity during a pandemic could contribute to the
evolution of new variants of the virus and possibly increase total deaths,
including in the high-income countries. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case
study, we use the epidemiological model of Holleran et al. that incorporates
virus mutation. We identify realistic scenarios under which a donor country
prefers to donate vaccines before distributing them locally in order to
minimize local deaths during a pandemic. We demonstrate that a nondonor-first
vaccination policy can delay, sometimes dramatically, the emergence of
more-contagious variants. Even more surprising, donating all vaccines is
sometimes better for the donor country than a sharing policy in which half of
the vaccines are donated and half are retained because of the impact donation
can have on delaying the emergence of a more contagious virus. Nondonor-first
vaccine allocation is optimal in scenarios in which the local health impact of
the vaccine is limited or when delaying emergence of a variant is especially
valuable. In all cases, we find that vaccine distribution is not a zero-sum
game between donor and nondonor countries. Thus, in addition to moral reasons
to avoid vaccine nationalism, donor nations can also realize local health
benefits from donating vaccines. The insights yielded by this framework can be
used to guide equitable vaccine distribution in future pandemics.
