Delivering on yet another promise which drew nothing but mockery and scorn from many on both sides of the political aisle, the Trump administration was right. We will indeed have a COVID-19 vaccine before the end of the year. The availability of immunizations in the United States looks likely in the coming weeks, and the United Kingdom became the “first country in the world to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine,” saying that the vaccine is safe and offers “95% protection against COVID-19 illness.” This particular vaccine is “the fastest vaccine to go from concept to reality, taking only 10 months to follow the same steps that normally span 10 years.”
So far, so good. Vaccines are, objectively, positive scientific inventions and are responsible for saving thousands — if not millions — of lives across the globe. COVID-19 is, objectively, a dangerous illness for vulnerable sections of the population, and so the availability of an apparently reliable method of protection has the potential to be instrumental in the fight against the virus.
However, like most of our political and social issues, the debate over broader COVID-19 vaccine policies is being diluted down to one of two camps. The first is unquestionably pro-vaccine, and the other is unquestionably anti-vaccine. Unfortunately, as a result, the nuance of this situation will be driven into insignificance by this lazy binary.
Vaccines are a crucial achievement in our species’ medical arsenal, allowing us to fight elements of nature and live to tell the tale. It is also true, though, that each disease we have been able to vaccinate against is different. The dangers posed to the average healthy child or adult by measles, tetanus, and polio, for example, far outweigh the dangers posed by the flu or chickenpox to that same person. This is not to say that the flu or chickenpox are “good” — they are obviously not — but that every disease exists on a spectrum of seriousness based on each individual patient. Therefore, every treatment exists on its own spectrum of “risk versus reward.” In the vast majority of cases, with decades of knowledge of a disease and its corresponding vaccine, we know that the rewards usually far outweigh any statistically negligible risk.
The issue is that such understanding of risk versus reward is achieved with time. When it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, it’s time that we simply have not had. While the vaccine may indeed be just as safe as any other mainstream vaccine, does the fact that something is broadly “safe” always justify its use? When current estimates suggest that a huge proportion of people who catch COVID-19 fully recover, it’s entirely unsurprising that the “risk” many are now willing to accept will be reduced by the lower reward.
This becomes important when we consider the real conversations being had regarding vaccine mandates, specifically COVID-19 vaccine mandates. To clarify, vaccines are crucially important as a general matter, and certain requirements regarding certain vaccines (such as measles or polio) are completely justified by the “risk versus reward” calculus discussed above. It’s also important, though, to acknowledge that being skeptical of a single vaccine does not make one a vaccine skeptic, or an “anti-vaxxer.” When people discuss enforcing the vaccination of citizens, or global airlines announce that they will “require passengers to get the COVID-19 vaccine before flying internationally,” people react angrily, and justifiably so. In many ways, this panic-induced foray into illiberal totalitarianism will only fuel the broad conspiracy theories of the anti-vaccine crowd, doing further damage to the legitimate argument in favor of other vaccine programs.
The line which has been crossed involves the subtle conflation of the “risk versus reward” analysis of non-invasive COVID-19 actions (such as mask wearing) and invasive actions (such as vaccinations). Yes, masks are inconvenient, uncomfortable, and sometimes ineffective, but I will personally never understand why people have made the wearing of a mask in any and all circumstances — however annoying – the particular hill they choose to die upon. Vaccines, on the other hand, are more than a piece of cloth you are required to wear on your face as you otherwise continue to live your life. It’s a medical treatment, and all treatments come with an element of physical risk. When that physical risk is outweighed by the risk of catching and being hugely impacted by the disease, then that is one thing. When the risk of the vaccine is comparable to the risk of the disease, that is another.
It is a wonderful achievement that we may have produced a vaccine in record time, and we should celebrate the fact that many vulnerable people (and less vulnerable people too) will have the personal choice to protect themselves. But it is of ultimate importance that we respect the sane middle ground which exists between the blindly pro-vaccine and the blindly anti-vaccine side of the debate (whether on the part of “anti-vaxxers” or opportunistic political cynics like Kamala Harris).
Requiring people to wear a mask in order to shop or travel is annoying. Requiring people to take a relatively new drug — and scorn those who protest as ignorant or dangerous — is a direct attack on our individual liberty. The line between the two is one we cannot cross.
Ian Haworth is host of The Ian Haworth Show and The Truth in 60 Seconds. Follow him on Twitter at @ighaworth.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.