Skip to main content

Why not to be outraged at skewed private vaccination situation

 The news of private hospital ‘cornering’ 50% of the supply that has been sold in private market will lead to its share of outrage. The news heading is likely to be typically misleading, of 9 private hospitals cornering 50% of the doses, giving impression that out of total supply of vaccines 50% went to these 9 entities. The 50% is of total supply made to private hospitals.

I do not find any surprise here. Vaccine makers will prefer large orders over bunch of small orders. It is likely that there will be distributing intermediaries between vaccine manufacturers and entities which conduct the vaccination to provide required large orders. Presence of intermediaries reduce profit of manufacturer as well as end of chain vaccinator. Large private hospital chains can bypass the intermediaries or provide the required large scale if there are no intermediaries. I am in fact surprised that nearly 50% of private market vaccine supply has gone to other than large players. It shows that even large private healthcare providers do not see themselves as reaching to half of the eager demand for vaccination, perhaps mainly due to mainly metropolitan presence with capacity constraint at any vaccination site.  


Some of us are even outraged at thriving private supply of vaccination, when government supply of vaccination has been patchy at best and dry at worst. And there is clearly an emotional basis to be outraged. At government sites, there are queues and uncertainty. At private sites, there are assured dose and ease of access. If one is prone to outrage, it is a tailor-made situation for outrage. I am sure that most of these outrage guys will be happy to have their jab when their employer or neighborhood institution arranges for them to be vaccinated (may be with family members) and will not be torn by betrayal of their outrage by their own actions.  

I am also outraged, but at my past choices which have made me stay in a place where vaccines are not easily available, in public or private mode. I am not at all outraged at private vaccination sites. Considering the price incentive offered to vaccine manufacturers, they would like to ensure a good steady supply to private vaccinators. It perhaps shows the nuisance value of government that vaccine manufacturers have not started supplying large chunk of their supply to private vaccinators. Government supplied vaccination still seems to be outstripping private one.  

I am happy that private vaccination sites are vaccinating a key section of society. It is a section which is perhaps keenest to go back to their lives and that will lead to lot of travel and mingling with other individuals from same class, with occasional brush to those who are not part of this group. Yes, along with this keenest section there is perhaps another section at private vaccinating site, the highly risk averse one. If there is going to be next wave or surge or tide, it is highly likely to be led by this keenest and rich enough section which is getting vaccinated at private sites. Having them vaccinated is going to lower the chance of next bad phase for all of us. The same line of thinking that makes vaccinating a section of workforce on priority a sensible decision makes privately supplied vaccination a sensible decision.

There is also an economic angle to it. If there is a section of society which has vaccine eagerness and considerable ability to pay, there is no reason why they should be given free vaccines. But when suppliers are allowed to price discriminate between section of consumers and consumers self-select the prices at which they will buy, it becomes the case that consumers buying in lower price category face certain decline in quality. There are numerous examples. Economy class will have cramped leg-space. Neglecting a moderate non-valid ticket holders crowding in non-AC sleeper coach allows Railways to get better demand for AC coaches. In other words, higher prices for better experience can turn ineffective if lower prices offer decent experience.

Scarcity and limited capacity induced not so pleasant experience at government vaccination centers is the key factor which generates demand for better experience by those who think that they should have it and can afford it. Even if government would not have allowed price discrimination, eager and privileged ones would have formed an extra-system channel to get their vaccination without queues and hassle. Price discrimination based transparent disparity is better than opaque disparity based on greasing the required parts.

This is not an argument against nationally provided free vaccine. Such alternative would have been the best one if there was no scarcity, though still using private channel for eager and can pay group would have been acceptable. Allowing private vaccination through price discrimination is not a bad thing when we are in scarcity. Insisting on government provision when things are scarce would have been inefficient. I do not have much hope that cold logic can douse flared outrage. But if we want to try, then there might be the basis to argue on lines discussed above.  

Popular posts from this blog

Balia suffers and Mumbai stares

  More than 100 have died in Balia and Deoria district of Uttar Pradesh in last few days . These districts have experienced heatwave conditions. IMD has given orange alert warning (40℃ to 45℃) for these as well as other districts in Eastern Uttar Pradesh. For those who are aware, Kim Stanley Robinson’s Climate fiction ‘The Ministry for the Future’ opens with a stunning description of heatwave related deaths in Uttar Pradesh. What is happening now in Deoria and Balia district has uncanny resemblance to what author has imagined. In some sense, we have been made aware of what awaits us, though we have decided to bury it because it is inconvenient. Even now, these deaths are not officially attributed to heatwave. Here is what I think have happened. It is a hypothesis rather than a statement with some proof. Balia and Deoria are districts near Ganga, a large water body. Rising temperatures have caused greater evaporation of this water body leading to excessive humidity in the surround

4 years of Demonetization: How non-cash payments have fared?

  Kiran Limaye, Himank Kavathekar -----------             On 8 November 2020, it will be four years to an announcement of policy of withdrawal and reissuance of high denomination currency notes, or what we popularly call ‘demonetization’. One of the stated objectives of the policy was encouraging the use of non-cash payment modes. It is generally considered that non-cash payment modes, debit and credit cards, mobile based payment mechanisms like UPI and prepaid payment instruments like mobile wallets are better than cash, for individual as well as for a society. These non-cash alternatives have less risk of theft and both ends of transactions are traced unlike cash which can be used without trace. But these non-cash modes require higher consumer involvement (for example, knowing pins and maintaining their secrecy and ability to operate smartphone beyond routine call receipt and dial) which are not acquired by section of population, mainly due to factors such as age or education. It w

Clash of Egos: Prashant Bhushan versus Supreme court in contempt of court

 Contempt is a notion defined with pre-existence of sense of self. If I do not possess ego, a sense of self, then I will not get offended by any contempt thrown at me. Yet, contempt plays a role in society in terms of a signal. We learn by experiences, but we chose through signals. I decide to buy based on reviews, which are signals. I decide to choose a path of education based on signals. Contempt can change the nature of signals about a person, an organization and an institution and change in signals can bring change in response of clients. This is the logic of reaction of supreme court, that if nature of perception of Supreme court changes due to contemptuous statements about supreme court then it will lead to  harm of the nation as Indians will use the institution of Supreme court in sub-optimal manner. It is a kind of utilitarian or consequential logic. The objection of Prashant Bhushan (PB) remark is not out of the nature of remarks per say, but due to the consequences.  I do not