Caution over the jab leaves our leaders in a quandary
The question of ministers taking the vaccine first is proof of a love-hate attitude to science, writes Andrew Woodcock
Medieval kings had food tasters who took a mouthful of their meal before they tucked in, to check that it was not poisoned. In modern times, there is considerable pressure for our rulers to play this role when it comes to vaccines.
After the Herculean scientific effort of identifying the genetic code of the Covid-19 virus, developing a
vaccine to neutralise it and putting the vaccine through rigorous tests to ensure its safety and efficacy, one big step now remains: persuading the public to roll up their sleeves for the jab.
Even before Wednesday’s triumphant announcement that the Pfizer/BioNTech inoculation was ready for use in the UK, conspiracy theories of varying shades of craziness had been circulating for months on the internet.
The vaccines were unsafe, social media users were told; they had been rushed through too fast; the army was going to be used to coerce people into accepting them; it was all part of a plot, and tech billionaire Bill Gates – often selected by “anti-vaxxers” as a bogeyman, for some reason – was using them to inject microchips into our bodies.
All “extraordinary nonsense”, as England’s deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van Tam, said. But the authorities are in no doubt that they need to take action to counter the conspiracists, in order to reassure naturally cautious members of the public that the rapidly developed vaccines are safe, and ultimately free the world of the curse of Covid.
Careful explanations of the science by the likes of Prof Van Tam will go a long way to winning over the majority, of course, but even the professor recognised that something a little more personal may be needed, as he set out his “Mum test” of deciding that he was happy for his own 78-year-old mother to have the jab as soon as possible.
The next logical step is to say to the politicians and scientists promoting uptake of the vaccine: “If you want us to take it, you take it first to show us it’s safe.”
This places Boris Johnson and his colleagues on the horns of a dilemma. For every voter shouting, “You take it first”, there will be another protesting, “Why do you get to jump the queue?”
The health secretary, Matt Hancock, plunged into the controversy feet-first by saying he’d be happy to get the jab live on TV if it helped build trust in it. And former presidents Barack Obama, George Bush and Bill Clinton have done the same in the US.
The prime minister’s press secretary, Allegra Stratton, tiptoed more carefully around the subject, telling reporters that they all knew Johnson’s character and knew that he’d be keen to have it if he could, but that he wouldn’t want to take a dose which could otherwise go to someone in greater need.
She swiftly shut down suggestions that another national leader entitled to be at the top of the priority list because of her age – the Queen – could be first to take it. “That would be a matter for the Palace,” replied Stratton.
The whole controversy is emblematic of the modern world’s weird love-hate relationship with science. We rely on it for everything in our daily lives – including the existence of the internet, which we use to spread doubts about it – but at the same time our trust in it seems to be waning.
We’ll soon see if that trust is so attenuated that we require our leaders to act as their own poison checkers, rather than accept the word of the scientific experts and watchdogs whose efforts promise to free us from the pandemic.
Yours,
Andrew Woodcock
Political editor