  As observed during the global SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic, high-income
countries, such as the United States, may exhibit vaccine nationalism during a
pandemic: stockpiling doses of vaccine for their own citizens and being
reluctant to distribute doses of the vaccine to lower-income countries. While
many cite moral objections to vaccine nationalism, vaccine inequity during a
pandemic could possibly worsen the global effects of the pandemic, including in
the high-income countries themselves, through the evolution of new variants of
the virus. This paper uses the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study to identify
scenarios under which it might be in a high-income nation's own interest to
donate vaccine doses to another country before its own population has been
fully vaccinated. We develop an extended SEIR
(susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered) epidemiological model embedded in an
optimization framework and examine scenarios involving a single donor and
multiple recipient (nondonor) geographic areas. We find that policies other
than donor-first can delay the emergence of a more-contagious variant compared
to donor-first, sometimes reducing donor-country deaths in addition to total
deaths. Thus, vaccine distribution is not a zero-sum game between donor and
nondonor countries: an optimization approach can achieve dramatic reduction in
total deaths with only a small increase (and occasionally even a decrease) in
donor-country deaths. We also identify realistic scenarios under which the
optimal policy has a switching form rather than adhering to a strict priority
order. The iterative linear programming approximation approach we develop can
help confirm those instances when a priority policy is optimal and, when not
optimal, can identify superior policies.
