HAJDU FAILS TO WALK THE LINE
Politics and journalism share the dubious distinction of being activities where no prior experience is considered necessary. You could be, say, a teacher and end up as prime minister, or a graphic designer who becomes health minister.
What you do need, though, is an ability to walk the line.
For this government at this time, the line is that the best COVID vaccine is the first one that is made available.
Opinion research shows the government has had some success, with Canadians less hesitant than Americans, Germans or the French.
But that progress was threatened by the muddled recommendation issued by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization this week. In a press conference that should be studied by future generations of communicators for its epic incongruity, chair Caroline Quach-Thanh and vice-chair Shelly Deeks pointed out that, while the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is highly efficacious at preventing critical illness and hospitalization, it also carries some risk (there have been 17 cases of blood clots from the eight million doses administered in the U.S.).
Consequently, the advisory council recommended it only be offered to individuals over 30 who preferred an earlier vaccination, rather than waiting for Pfizer or Moderna mRNA shots.
NACI previously expressed its reservations about another viral vector-based vaccine produced by AstraZeneca, suggesting it should not be given to those older than 65. A later recommendation stated AstraZeneca should not be given to anyone under 55. Both recommendations contradicted Health Canada's position that the vaccine could be given to anyone older than 18.
In media interviews later in the day, Quach-Thanh, a professor at the Université de Montréal, added a note of alarm to the confusion. “If my sister was to get the AstraZeneca vaccine and then died of thrombosis when I knew it could have been prevented ... I'm not sure I could live with it,” she told CTV's Power Play.
The reaction from other healthcare professionals was immediate and uniform. David Naylor, head of the National COVID-19 Immunity Task Force, told CBC he worries that Canada could become the only country in the world where “buyer's remorse” develops among people who have already been vaccinated. Naylor pointed out that all vaccines do well at protecting against COVID and that vaccines can only be compared directly after head-to-head clinical trials, something that has not happened in any jurisdiction.
“It is an unsettling message because it suggests you got the second-best vaccine (if you got Janssen or AstraZeneca)” he said.
NACI's suggestion that Canadians in COVID hot spots should take one of the two viral vector-based vaccines, leaving the mRNA vaccines like Pfizer and Moderna to less affected populations sends a “terrible signal,” he said. “Let's not get into Gucci verses Rolex versus no-name branding.”
NACI's role has always been complementary to that of Health Canada, which assesses vaccines for safety, efficacy and manufacturing quality. It is an external group that provides government with independent advice and it is meant to take into consideration the broader real-world situation. Yet in this case, it seems to have overlooked the context that all vaccines save lives and the more people who are inoculated, the safer everyone else will be.
Thankfully, everyone else gets that. Or almost everyone.
It should probably be assumed by this point that Patty Hajdu, the health minister, will take a day or two to adapt to changing circumstances. In question period on Monday, Conservative health critic Michelle Rempel Garner pointed out that many Canadians will be confused by NACI's recommendation. Should they take the first vaccine offered or make an informed choice about waiting for mRNA vaccines? “What is the advice from Health Canada?” she asked.
This was the perfect opportunity for the minister to walk the line.
But she flubbed it, saying Canadians should consult their health care professional to see which vaccine is right for them.
The Conservative MP repeated her question, causing the minister to fly into a synthetic rage. “It is somewhat disconcerting to see the member opposite try to instil fear in our health care institutions ... For her to imply that patients would not get that expertise and advice from medical professionals is really a lack of confidence in all our provincial and territorial partners,” she said.
If I were the prime minister, I would be expressing a lack of confidence in my health minister right about now — a repeat offender when it comes to putting her foot in it.
It was left to Trudeau in his regular news conference to steady the ship and point out that people should take the first vaccine offered to them. “Our advice to Canadians has not changed. Make sure you get your shot. Vaccines work.”
Hajdu was back on track later in the day in question period, when she made clear she was unwavering in her opinion that Canadians should accept the first shot offered. “We can be part of the solution,” she said, with the resounding confidence possessed only by those who live life in constant confusion.
It would be amusing, if only the stakes weren't so high.