Misinformation and fear could be coronavirus vaccine’s biggest problem

“Poison”, “ticking timebomb” and “never in a million years”.

These are just some of the things Londoners said to me when I asked them if they’d take a Covid vaccine. Perhaps they’ve joined the small but vocal minority claiming that the vaccine is a plot to insert surveillance microchips into the population, or maybe, like many thousands more, they simply worry the development of the jab has been rushed.

We will probably never know, but while it’s easy to dismiss as ridiculous some of the more extreme anti-vaccine sentiment out there — like anyone repeating the rumour spread by Russian bots that the vaccine will turn us into chimpanzees — the number of “vaccine hesitant” people is growing. Most of them are not cranks, just cautious — and, in a climate of fear and confusion, their trust in what they read in the papers or hear in government briefings is diminishing.

In a recent study by the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, only 54 per cent of UK respondents said they would definitely get a Covid vaccine — and after viewing misinformation on social media that number dropped to 47.6 per cent. “Covid-19 vaccines will be crucial to helping to end this pandemic and returning our lives to near normal,” says Professor Heidi Larson, who led the study. “However, vaccines only work if people take them.”

Last year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) identified vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health — months before coronavirus even came on the radar.

The “hesitant” cohort is broad. Among its number are plenty of people who get the flu jab every year without hesitation, and a Facebook group set up to propagate anti-vaccine theories even included NHS doctors and nurses. Chief among their fears is that vaccines have been rushed through, and not subjected to proper scrutiny. It doesn’t help that there is not just one Covid vaccine to clear up rumours about — there are over 150 in development across the world.

“If we don’t win back the trust of this group, the widely-celebrated news that the Pfizer vaccine is 95 per cent effective will mean nothing. Without the majority of the country agreeing to have the jab, there will be no herd immunity. Social distancing will continue, lockdowns may recur, and life is unlikely to go back to normal for a very long time, explains Dr Will Budd.

“The World Health Organisation estimate that 60 to 70 per cent of people need to be vaccinated to confer that herd immunity protection,” he says. Dr Budd is more aware than most of just how essential an enthusiastic uptake of the vaccine is — he graduated from medical school in April but, unlike his peers, could not head straight to the NHS frontline.

Instead, having had a kidney transplant several years earlier, he was considered vulnerable and forced to shield. Now, he’s working on the clinical research trials into the vaccine at Imperial College London — and spends the rest of his time trying to win the trust of vaccine-doubters online. He says it’s a choice between widespread vaccinating, and an unhappy future of cyclical shielding and lockdowns.

“It’s very hard to shield, especially if you’re on your own. If Covid sticks around, and you’re high risk — which everyone will be at some point, once they reach a certain age — you can’t have them locked away for six months of the year. People will really struggle.”

His unique experience of both shielding and working on some of the vaccines is the driver behind why he joined Team Halo, a UN-backed initiative which sees doctors like him taking to TikTok to post videos tackling misinformation. They’re doing all they can to break into the echo chamber of fear, hoax and conspiracy to give people proper answers to their questions.

“Education is the main issue — or lack of education. If someone doesn’t understand how something works, they fear it. And that’s understandable. We’re not telling people what to do, we’re trying to help them understand and it needs to be a two-way conversation.”

That’s why the use of the term “vaccine hesitant” rather than “anti-vax” is essential in winning hearts and minds over to the public health cause. Shaming people for their concerns — whether by calling them an anti-vaxxer with all the associated connotations, or the other popular slur “covidiot”, is counterproductive, say these campaigners. They want to win people over with empathy and education, not badger or shame them into complying.

“When you say anti-vaxxer, you think of a bit of a bonkers person and wonder what else they believe in — do they think the moon landing is fake? If somebody has a genuine concern and you respond by calling them an anti-vaxxer, they’re not going to ask you a question again. Hesitant is it a good term because it doesn’t have to mean they’re against it, just that they’re worried. When someone is hesitant, you’re aiming to give them confidence,” explains Dr Budd.

To those who say they won’t take the vaccine until they’ve seen the scientists and the politicians take it? They won’t have to wait long, he says. “I’ll push my way to the front if I have to.” But he and his colleagues have a grudging respect for the vaccine hesitant: “I think it’s really good that people are being critical and asking questions,” says Dr Anna Blakney, a bioengineer working on the Imperial vaccine. “After all, that’s what scientists are taught to do. But other people may not have the same access to the data that we do, so bridging that gap is really important. That’s what helps us build trust.”

So what questions are people asking? The main concerns are the speed with which the vaccine has come into being (“are you cutting corners?”, “What about the long-term effects?”) and whether they’ll be “forced” to have the jab. Suggestions from some MPs that inoculation could become a condition of returning to the office, using public transport, or simply made mandatory have done nothing to quell the latter anxiety.

“I don’t think that would ever happen in this country,” says Dr Paul McKay, a senior fellow at Imperial College who designed, made and tested their Covid-19 vaccine and has worked in vaccine development for almost 30 years. Rules around informed consent mean compulsory vaccination is not legal. “We have to support people in their decision, not force them. I think it is safe, super safe, but that doesn’t mean I get to decide for them.”

As for the speed of the scientific breakthrough? It’s been slightly overstated, admits Dr McKay. “Maybe we scientists should not have been reinforcing the idea that we’ve done this really quickly. Maybe we should have been reinforcing the fact that actually, we have been working on this technology for many years. When the coronavirus came about, we already had done four years of work on this particular vaccine and the mechanics of how it works.

“We just took the surface protein from the Covid-19 virus and slotted that into our vaccine. It was a very easy and obvious step for us.” Not only that, but there has never before been such a concentration of funding and focus funnelled toward a single purpose.

“The whole scientific world wasn’t working on anything else. You were either working on coronavirus or you were sitting at home.”

Fears that the vaccine will be “fast-tracked” a licence are unnecessary, says Dr McKay. “This vaccine is no different to any other vaccine [in terms of regulatory compliance]. The MHRA aren’t giving any leeway, they aren’t allowing any shortcuts, and that’s as it should be.”

When I raise the spectre of the potential long-term effects, Dr McKay is more circumspect. Discussion of the swine flu vaccine rolled out in 2009 is rife in both anti-vax and vaccine hesitant circles — the Pandemrix jab was later discovered to slightly increase the risk of children developing the sleep disorder narcolepsy. “There was a side effect with that particular vaccine that a tiny number of people got narcolepsy. But it’s really very small numbers — and as soon as they found out that it was having this effect they stopped giving it to people under the age of 20.” It’s a case of weighing up the risks, says Dr McKay. “There’s risk to everything — there’s a risk to taking an aspirin. And if you compare a small side effect like that [seen in the swine flu vaccine] to these reports of Long Covid that are coming out — after-effects of the virus that seem to be really debilitating for quite a number of people who have been infected.”

And such concerns about long-term side effects are no more valid when it comes to the Covid vaccine than they are with every new vaccine or drug, no matter how long it’s been in development. “The long-term safety issue is something that is always worked out over time, for every new vaccine after it’s been licensed — it’s a continuing safety assessment and you will have a one-year, two-year, three-year analysis of what’s happening. If there’s a hint that something is going wrong, they’ll stop giving it,’ says Dr McKay.

Pfizer joined forces with BioNTech, a German company founded by married couple and dedicated scientists Ugur Sahin and Ozlem Tureci, to produce its vaccine. Pfizer’s chairman Albert Bourla said in an open letter, that “safety is, and will remain, our number one priority, and we will continue monitoring and reporting safety data for all trial participants for two years”.

Despite some unfortunate mixed messaging so far, Government officials say they are well aware that there is an information war they need to win in order to beat Covid — and like these TikTok-ing doctors, they believe that social media is the key.

Earlier this month Health Secretary Matt Hancock and Digital Secretary Oliver Dowden announced a refreshed alliance between the Government’s Counter Disinformation Unit and social media giants Google, Twitter and Facebook, who promised to work with authorities to promote scientifically accurate messages and respond to false content more swiftly in an effort to prevent the spread of misinformation that “could cost lives”.

But could they be doing more? Winning trust is not just about taking down “fake news” but about getting the truth more airtime — and giving it a human face, say the scientists. Dr Budd hopes that the Government will invest in celebrity-backed TV and online adverts explaining the vaccine and busting the myths, while Dr Blakney believes continued interaction directly between scientists and the public is key.

“Individual conversations — as inefficient as that is — are really important. When someone says ‘the Government made this vaccine to control us with microchips’ and I say, ‘no they didn’t, I made the vaccine, it has five ingredients and a microchip isn’t one of them,’ they believe me.” “Having the vaccine gives us a light at the end of the tunnel,’ says Dr McKay. “It gives us something to look forward to, that we might have a life next year instead of it being like this year. But only if enough people accept it.”

Read More

Xmas plans being discussed today as London waits to find out tier

PM: Xmas is the season to be ‘jolly careful’ despite vaccine hopes

Prince William praises team behind Oxford University Covid-19 vaccine

Home-grown Oxford vaccine ‘up to 90% effective’ and ‘here next month’