IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/fbbsrw/v11y2022i4p371-375.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resolving the Covid Vaccination Debate by Understanding Diversity and Standardization

Author

Listed:
  • Shaomin Li
  • David Selover

Abstract

To help resolve the current debate on whether countries should vaccinate the whole population against Covid, we offer a new perspective by looking at the issue as a case of diversity versus standardization, which, we believe, is at the heart of the issue, moving away from the politics. While diversity and standardization are, to a large extent, opposites, they are also complementary in social, economic and technological development. Over-promoting or artificially suppressing one or the other will harm the creativity and efficiency of an economy. The optimal balance between diversity and standardization is that when facing a new problem of an unknown nature, we must diversify and create a competition to find the best methods for solving it. In the current covid crisis, we have done just that, and now we have a good set of vaccines, some better than others. Once the best methods are found, the government of a country should concentrate and adopt them as the standard for the entire nation for implementation. When we develop vaccines, we need some diversity, a diversity of ideas, approaches and chemistry. Once the best vaccines have been found, we need to have standardization to quickly vaccinate the entire population and realize the benefits of the vaccines.

Suggested Citation

  • Shaomin Li & David Selover, 2022. "Resolving the Covid Vaccination Debate by Understanding Diversity and Standardization," FIIB Business Review, , vol. 11(4), pages 371-375, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:fbbsrw:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:371-375
    DOI: 10.1177/23197145211060110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23197145211060110
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/23197145211060110?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:fbbsrw:v:11:y:2022:i:4:p:371-375. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.