Should you get a Corona Vaccination? Why we should not even be having this discussion

By Christiaan Vonk

Having a well-informed discussion whether you should get yourself vaccinated against the Covid-19 virus is one thing, but having this discussion in the first place is another. In the last few weeks, the final test results of the Pfeizer, Moderna and Oxford vaccine have been promising, often offering protection to more than 90 percent of the test groups with hardly any measurable side effects. Nevertheless, in many developed countries, such as the Netherlands, the willingness of the population to get the jab has been steadily decreasing since last summer. Surveys by I&O Research shows that over 73 percent of the Dutch population was willing to get the vaccine in June, but dwindling down to around 60 percent in November. According to many, this is mainly due to questions raised about the unprecedented fast production of the vaccine. Talkshows, newspapers and even government agencies encourage people to discuss the vaccine question; they hope that by engaging with the population’s doubts, they can easily prove that their worries are superfluous.
Engaging in this discussion, however, could prove to be counterproductive.

Historical analysis funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health shows that infant mortality decreased dramatically due to the undeniable effectiveness of vaccination programs during the 1950’s. Furthermore, the adult population enjoys similar benefits accounted for by vaccinations. A myriad of diseases – some much scarier that Covid-19 – have been eradicated due to herd immunity caused by the extraordinary high vaccination coverage. It would hardly be exaggerating to state that vaccination programs are the cradle of our modern society. There should be no surprise, then, that the vast majority of the Corona vaccine doubters reap considerable benefits from the vaccines for which they are already vaccinated. History shows us that every so often, new vaccines are added to state vaccination programs without much kerfuffle. Why should the Corona vaccine be any different?

One of the reasons main reasons for the doubts surrounding the Corona vaccine, I argue, is the prominence the debate has in the public eye. For good reason, the Covid-19 pandemic has affected just about everyone worldwide. Of course there is going to be a strong focus on vaccines. Less obvious, is the stage offered to those who preach alternative believes. Take, for instance, Willem Engel; the Dutch frontman of the anti-lockdown movement. Suddenly, he is invited to every talkshow to discuss the pandemic measures with a whole spectrum of scientific experts. As a result, people are tricked into thinking they are consuming a balanced discussion, which they are definitely not. The same holds up for the vaccination discussion.

By taking into account various stances in the debate, public institutions uphold the myth of neutrality. The idea that neutrality in staging discussions leads to reason, has taken a bit of a dive in the post-fact era. Through all kinds of new (digital) media, voices that used to operate on the margins of society easily penetrate the centre. In many cases, this is actually a good development (think of marginalised groups by e.g. race and gender). The downside is, however, that “alternative” beliefs sow the seed of doubt in scientific institution on a public stage; thus, creating the binary of “mainstream” and “alternative” reasoning.

So what does this mean for the vaccination discussion? In general, the media and public institutions try to do the right thing, which is not labelling the growing part of the population that does not believe in the safety of vaccines – despite their approval by respected medical institutions – as “stupid.” The train of thought is that by well-informed discussions, people can be brought to reason. The problem is that “alternative” beliefs defy any “mainstream” scientific knowledge. “If Engel discusses the effectiveness one-on-one with a medical expert, then they could both be equally correct, right?” Just because a growing part of the population believes in alternative views, does not give them the privilege of equal representation in the Corona vaccine debate. Paradoxically, it is the “mainstream” that provides the stage to those who undermine them. In conclusion, the myth of neutrality in discussions and debates should be let go. Engaging in the Corona vaccine debate like a balanced discussions, means extending the influence of alternative beliefs in the public sphere.