The reason there is the "Only for use in Africa" label on some vaccines. Please bring every #African here:

The fundamental reason is essentially one of supply management so that #Africans also get a sizeable share of the vaccine within a reasonable time frame. In other words, it is a way to reserve a portion of the vaccine for #Africa.
It is meant to secure the vaccines for #Africa - it is the manufacturers, being aware of the scarcity of the vaccine, proactively managing supply so that there is some for #Africa.
COVID19 is a worldwide pandemic and some parts of the world are more affected than others and every nation and region is working frantically to secure some vaccine for its population.
The problem is that supply is limited, there are roughly less than a dozen vaccines that have been approved by WHO for distribution.
For some of those vaccines, a number of countries had placed orders well before the vaccine was even fully developed.

Essentially the supply of the vaccine should be on the first come, first serve basis.
Except, #African nations do not have money & never placed any orders upfront. In fact any vaccine to be supplied to #Africa states will be supplied on charity using funds raised by various nations & organisations specifically for the purpose of securing free vaccines for #Africa.
To meet all this world demand, it will take a while, months if not years and seeing #Africa is at the back of that queue, it would mean #African citizens would be waiting for quite sometime before getting their hands on any vaccine.
Aware of this, the manufacturers are labelling some of that vaccine batch "Only for use in #Africa." so as to ensure they are not redirected to other waiting customers during the distribution process.
It has nothing to do with the content of those bottles being different and specifically meant to kill #Africans.

Look nobody is interested in killing #Africans - there is no practical or economical value in doing that.
But even if the West or other powers wanted #Africans dead, the most efficient way of doing that isn't by way of engineering vaccines specifically for that purpose or by way of administering any medicine to the #African population.
All that is needed is for the West or the rest of the world to withdraw any support; technical, technological, monetary but more importantly any medical support.
Doing that would ensure that #Africans will essentially start dropping like flies from Cholera, Malaria, HIV / AIDS, Ebola and many other ailments.
In other words, ensuring the most efficient decimation (mass killing) of the #African population would require doing exactly the opposite of what you are currently afraid of.

More from Society

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x