A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic - Laura Dodsworth (the first e reader .txt) 📗

vaccine does not include foetal material, but was developed using it. Don’t people of faith deserve the complete truth for informed consent? The British Medical Islamic Association does cover this in its own Q&A on the AstraZeneca vaccine:

‘While the key recombinant protein is made in cells descended from human embryonic cells, the original and descended cells are not present in the final vaccine.’ Faith groups don’t advise against the AstraZeneca vaccine, although it is a very controversial area and I suggest individuals should be fully informed in order to make up their own minds.

I interviewed Calvin Robinson, educationalist, political advisor and commentator on race issues, about the video for a sanity-check and a different perspective. Broadly speaking, he was sanguine about the aims and benefits: ‘As much as I hate propaganda, I think things like this are necessary. I’ve seen a lot of anti-vax content shared on social media. I have concerns about lockdown and civil liberties but I’m not an anti-vaxxer. If this video is going to help encourage people to trust the vaccine, then I am for it.’

I explained my concerns about the unsubstantiated and bold claims made in the video, and he agreed that ‘individual statements in the video are worrying, and I don’t think we should combat misinformation with misinformation. I don’t like the idea of manipulation.’

One reason I wanted Calvin’s perspective is that as well as being known for his incisiveness, he is from an ethnic minority. I asked him if he could imagine this video being made by white people for white people. He laughed and said he couldn’t. I said I thought that despite its obviously good intentions, it felt infantilising and racist. He agreed.

On 18 February a re-shot version was aired on ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky. Boris Johnson and the Prince of Wales tweeted the film on 19 February. This is a phenomenal level of support.

I couldn’t quite get to the bottom of how the film was made, but the reluctance of everyone to answer my questions was in itself suspicious. I offered the right to reply numerous times to Samir Ahmed and the Cabinet Office. Eventually I eked sparse responses from the Cabinet Office which seemed designed to close down the questions rather than deny involvement.

I asked the Cabinet Office some specific questions:

•Samir Ahmed at Media Hive told me he knew I had been in touch with the Cabinet Office. As you are communicating with each other, please can you tell me more about the level of collaboration between the Cabinet Office (or a different government department) and the creators of the video?

•Did the UK government, a government unit, or an agency employed by the government collaborate on the video in terms of conception, script, direction, public relations?

•Was the UK government involved in fact-checking the video to ensure accuracy about the vaccine?

•The video states: ‘Soon we will be reunited with our friends and family provided we do one simple thing. Take the vaccine’ and ‘Not only will you be saving your life, but you will be saving other lives too.’ Would you agree that this statement, alongside a few similar ones in the video, could be seen as emotional manipulation? And do you think this could interfere with someone’s ability to make a decision based on informed consent?

•The video states: ‘How can you save someone’s life? Take the vaccine.’ How will you be saving someone else’s life by taking the vaccine?

•The video states: ‘There are no cases of significant side-effects among the millions of people who have received this vaccine. ‘The video does not make it clear which vaccine it is talking about. Is the statement correct?’

The Cabinet Office press officer replied that ‘the video by Adil Ray is not part of a Government campaign and was made independently.’ I pointed out that ‘made independently’ could refer simply to the recording (as the end screen of the video stated), but allowed room for collaboration between government and the agency and Adil Ray over inception, scripting, fact-checking and publicity, for example. There had obviously been some collaboration as Samir Ahmed at Media Hive knew I had been in touch with the Cabinet Office. I pressed again for answers to my specific questions. The reply was: ‘We have nothing further to add to the below.’

The unwillingness of government departments to comment on the accuracy of the vaccine claims, the media support, the dovetailing of the film with SPI-B’s recommendations and other resulting actions, the fact that the Cabinet Office and agency were communicating behind the scenes, and social media support from the PM and Prince of Wales do suggest a level of collaboration.

I asked Lucy Easthope about the video. She said: ‘In disaster and recovery planning we make “safe” lists of people who can deliver the messages for us, act as ‘interpreters’ for us. One of my concerns was sitting in meetings where psychologists come up with the lists of celebrities who will best sell messages to different communities. I’m afraid I can see how this would have been done. It’s a reductionist approach to use people for their ethnicity.’ On one hand, it’s understandable to use ‘community champions’. But on the other hand it feels grossly offensive to recruit people based on their ethnicity. According to Easthope, she has been told by ethnic minorities that they are aware of being racially targeted which leads to cynicism. She cited an example of black youths laughing with her about videos that targeted them being set in ‘chicken shops’.

An article13 in the BMJ summed up the issues of informed consent around the Covid vaccine: ‘it is important to ensure that information communicated to the public be truthful, transparent and accurate. This is best communicated by experienced professionals. Risk should be disclosed in terms of both known risks, including common side-effects, and potentially unknown risk.’

It looks like the government is using all the behavioural insights techniques at its disposal to encourage people to take the vaccine. Many will think the ends justify the