The scientists have kept up their end of fighting the virus. Now politicians must step up

Just as surviving the Covid pandemic, to the extent that the country has, depended on public compliance and governmental action, so too will emerging from the crisis. If life in Britain is to return to something like normality by this time next year, the vaccines now becoming available will need mass coverage, and that, in turn, will require easy mass availability – a huge logistical challenge. On the basis of recent experience, none of that can be taken for granted.  

Just for a change, Boris Johnson’s bullishness cannot be faulted. The apparent successful development of the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is indeed “fantastic”. As with the others in the field, it is an unprecedentedly rapid achievement, and stands testament to the world’s scientific community. In sharp contrast to the politicians, the scientists have underpromised and overdelivered. They’ve done their moonshot, though they’d never be so foolish as to have used such hyperbole about their patient efforts.  

The new latest vaccine is also a notable achievement for free competition. The Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca vaccines are all effective but have different designs, and some will suit particular markets better than others. The AstraZeneca jab, for example, can survive at higher temperatures and is cheaper than the others, but, unlike the others, works best with two applications to get to a 90 per cent effectiveness rate. Some vaccines will be more suitable for people with compromised immune systems, say, and others for developing countries. And so on. Overall, the Oxford/AstraZeneca not-for-profit project is an invaluable contribution to the containment and, maybe in due course, elimination of the coronavirus.

All of that, however, requires mass acceptance of the vaccine as a minimum: a pile of vaccines in a refrigerated warehouse will do no good. As with other public health measures such as masks, the benefits of the vaccines redound to the wider community as well as individuals. The great utility of vaccines lies in the achievement of a herd immunity effect: the greater the number of people taking the vaccines, the more effective they will prove and the safer it will be to get out and about.  

The government should therefore consider how to popularise and incentivise adoption of the vaccines. The government, MPs, members of the royal family, celebrities, sportspeople should be early high-profile adopters. Public education, especially on social media, is essential. It has, happily, worked in the past to overcome public fears.

Compulsion seems a heavy-handed and probably counterproductive step, but parents, for example, should be reminded that even though the young tend to be less prone to Covid, schools and playgroups are places where the virus can spread. Just as they should not send a child to school with any other communicable disease, so they should take steps to prevent their child from developing one, where that is possible. Employers too have a duty of care to all their staff: an unvaccinated employee represents a threat to the health and lives of their workmates. Should they still be welcomed into the workshop or the office, the hospital or the railway station? It does not seem sensible. The anti-vaxxers may be free to refuse to be vaccinated but, as ever in life, there should be consequences for their selfish actions. If they want to get on a plane or a cruise ship, then they can do so if they are vaccinated; they have a choice.  

Given the record on test and trace, no one should be optimistic about the government’s ability to achieve a smooth delivery of the vaccine to the public. Still, the NHS and pharmacies do have the experience of the annual flu vaccinations to draw upon, as well as the MMR programme for children. The priority categories for vaccination are also obvious and uncontroversial – health and social care workers, other “frontline” roles, those previously shielding, and older people and those with known comorbidity risk. This, as it happens, applies internationally as well as locally, because the survival of reservoirs of the virus in parts of the world means that it will sooner or later make its way to the rich world. It is also more likely to mutate if it is allowed to flourish in other parts of the world, rendering existing vaccines and therapeutic treatments less effective.  

More immediately, the return, in England, of the tier system as lockdown is eased poses familiar challenges of communication and compliance. Telling residents that they are about to return to, say, tier 3 restrictions, but tier 3 is now stricter than the old tier 3, will add to popular bemusement. It will also add to a sense of fatigue at the continuing and seemingly unending imposition of restrictions. The traditions of Christmas may prove too much for some under virtual house arrest for months. More mass testing, such as was trialled in Liverpool, might bolster public confidence.

As now, some parts of the country will enjoy higher rates of vaccination than others, and some will still suffer from local outbreaks. There will thus still be a need for an efficient test and trace system and properly resourced local public health teams. The crisis is far from over. As the virus mutates, the vaccines will become a less secure line of defence, and investment in new vaccines will be needed as the scientists play catch-up. The lockdowns will not end. This coronavirus, like its close relatives, is a formidable threat to human wellbeing. It’s not over.