Monday Memo #87: Stanford Launches Trial Testing Pfizer Vaccine in Children
By Noah Howard and Jackson Vachal
Start your week off right, with a round-up of Stanford-related news from Stanford Politics.
Stanford Launches Trial Testing Pfizer Vaccine in Children
As part of a national study, Stanford Health Care has begun a trial testing the Pfizer vaccine in children 2 to 5 years old. More than a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, over 75 million Americans are fully vaccinated, but younger children remain unprotected. Vaccination schemes across the country have rightfully prioritized older Americans, those with preexisting conditions, and essential workers, while young adults and children have been regarded as largely safe from the worst effects of the disease. However, with children under 18 comprising a quarter of the American population and accounting for 13.5% of infections, experts say that the nation's youth must be vaccinated in order for the country to achieve herd immunity. According to Stanford Medical School professor Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, who is leading the Stanford trial, “We want to make sure that children have access to vaccines not just for themselves but for the community.” After announcing last month that its vaccine is safe and effective for children ages 12 to 15, Pfizer’s national study is testing the vaccine in children younger than 12. Stage 1 the study includes 144 participants in 5 participating locations across the country, of which Stanford is the only west coast location. It is testing the efficacy and safety of three different vaccine doses — 10, 20, and 30 micrograms — in three different age groups — 6 months to 2 years, 2 to 5 years, and 5 to 11 years. The aim is to identify how large of a dose can be given to children of each age cohort with the fewest possible side effects. In later stages, the study will expand to include 4,500 volunteers across the country. The new research comes as many states, including California, open vaccine eligibility to young adults.
Stanford Affiliates comment on Biden Plan to Withdraw from Afghanistan
Last week President Biden announced his administration’s plan for a complete withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, the 20th anniversary of 9/11. Over the next five months, the 3,500 American troops currently stationed in the central Asian country will exit in phases. Since its inception in 2001, the war in Afghanistan has cost several trillion dollars, more than 2,000 American lives, and more than 100,000 Afghan civilian casualties. According to the administration, the threat to the United States posed by Afghanistan now pales in comparison to larger geostrategic issues, including an increasingly capable China, an aggressive Russia, unpredictable regimes in Iran and North Korea, and other Middle Eastern countries. The relatively rapid withdrawal has drawn significant criticism from Biden’s political rivals and from some policy experts concerned that a U.S. exit may lead to the collapse of the Afghan government and the ascent of the Taliban. Biden has acknowledged the need for the U.S. to provide ongoing humanitarian aid and assistance to the Afghan government after the military withdrawal. In a Politico article published Thursday, Asfandyar Mir, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, and co-author Colin P. Clarke of the Soufan Center analyzed geopolitical and counterterrorism policy in light of Biden’s announcement. Mir and Clarke explore several likely post-withdrawal scenarios and argue for a two-pronged American strategy based on continued cooperation with Afghan allies and renewed efforts to develop stabilizing regional relationships. Wrote the two authors, “America's position in trying to build a new, effective counterterrorism strategy in a challenging region is less than ideal. But those are the no-kidding costs of deciding to remove troops from Afghanistan, something U.S. presidents have consistently punted on dating back several administrations.”
Stanford Experts Weigh in on Nord Stream 2
With each passing day, Germany nears completion of its controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Russia. This project involves laying 1200 kilometers of pipes along the Baltic Sea floor from Russia to northern Germany enabling the import of 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year. Former ambassador to Ukraine and current affiliate at the Freeman Spogli Institute Steven Pifer (’76) outlines some of the main perspectives on this issue. Proponents of Nord Stream 2, such as many in the German business community and the current government of Germany, state that Nord Stream 2 is a purely commercial project and as such should be left out of political disagreements. Moreover, due to mounting pressure from the U.S. and other E.U. nations, these same supporters have begun to view Nord Stream 2 as a test of German sovereignty. Recently, visiting fellow at the Hoover Institute Andrew Roberts even made note of the German President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, justifying Nord Stream 2 as an apology for the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. A remark Ukraine’s diplomat described as “dubious” at best and cynical in ascribing all Soviet victims solely to Russia. Opponents of the pipeline describe the project as inherently political, framing the project as a Russian attempt to reduce gas exports through Ukraine in an effort to deprive it of important transit revenue. They argue, if the project was purely commercial than Russia would have instead chosen the cheaper option of updating the already existing pipeline infrastructure in Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland. In addition, European opponents of Nord Stream 2 warn that over-reliance on Russian exports of gas could, in the future, lead to Russian threats to cut off gas shipments during political disagreement, a strategy Moscow has employed a multitude of times. In the U.S., the Biden administration and a bipartisan congressional coalition publicly oppose the pipeline due to fears of Europe’s over-reliance on Russian natural gas and the effects this would have on Ukraine. Pifer concludes his analysis advocating for a compromise between Berlin, Moscow, Kyiv, and Washington in which Ukraine will continue to receive transport revenue, the U.S. will refrain from further sanctions, and Berlin and Moscow get to complete their pipeline.
And in case you missed it…
Santa Clara County has opened up vaccine eligibility. Here’s what you need to know (Echevarria | Stanford Daily)
Study finds that paid family leave does not hurt employers (Crawford | SIEPR)
Partner, Competitor, and Challenger: Thoughts on the Future of America’s China Strategy (Wells | FSI)
All Off-Campus Stanford-Funded Internships Must be Virtual (Turk | Stanford Daily)
About the Authors
Noah Howard ’22 is pursuing majors in Economics and International Relations with a minor in Iranian Studies. Living in Washington D.C., he is currently writing a thesis about the role of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard in Iranian Politics.
Jackson Vachal ’22 is pursuing majors in Political Science and Philosophy, with a focus on democratic theory. A San Francisco native, he is interested in social entrepreneurship and nonprofit advocacy work.e you missed it…