Congress and our nation’s public health officials should take the current moment to self-reflect and resolve challenges with public confidence in our public and scientific institutions.
Some members of Congress are after Dr. Anthony Fauci again1 – full of accusations against the now retired, octogenarian NIH veteran who tried to inject science-based decision-making into our national response to the COVID pandemic. Once again, lawmakers lobbed conspiracy theories about the origins of COVID and misconstrued decisions over mask and vaccine recommendations.
None of us, not even Dr. Fauci, could have known in February 2020 that the COVID-related death toll would reach the current estimates ranging from 72 to 353 million globally. The staggering discrepancy in that range tells us we are still coming to grips with its toll. Nor could we predict that COVID would cause such unfathomable, disorienting economic and social hardships.
The emerging threats of unfamiliar pathogens require quick assessments and rapid actions with very little information on which to base decisions. Their impacts cannot be predicted. Sometimes they claim the lives of tens of millions like the 1918 Spanish flu4 or HIV/AIDS.5 Other times, they subside quickly or impact relatively few like the 2002-2004 SARS6 and 2012 MERS7 outbreaks.
The pandemic’s epidemiological ups and downs led to understandable clashes in scientific and lay opinion8 during the pandemic which continue to this day.9 Not all decisions made were perfect ones.
Some members of Congress10 have seized the narrative by combining its flaws with outright misinformation. This has included misrepresentations that COVID vaccines failed because transmission still occurred11, ignoring the way we actually measure the effectiveness of vaccines, such as risk of infection, symptoms, and severity, along with secondary endpoints like hospitalization.12
Likewise, lawmakers have suggested that vaccines are forced, unconsented medical treatment, ignoring the fundamental public health role they play in building herd immunity to suppress threats against our society. A person who refuses individual medical care does not jeopardize his neighbor’s life. We did not mask, vaccinate or social distance only to prevent ourselves from acquiring COVID. We did so to reduce overall disease burden13, to protect our loved ones and neighbors from severe illness and hospitalizations.
It is astonishing how quickly we forgot the desperation and clamoring for vaccines to save human lives.14 Despite all of the unknowns, the public and private sectors came together, acting in good faith, to quickly mobilize and defeat the threat with a rapid, scientifically sound vaccination campaign. After they were delivered with much-demanded speed, the collective urgency has eroded public mistrust, astonishingly inflamed by members of Congress.15
Disagreements over how information is communicated are acceptable. To the point of Bruce Wenstrup, chair of the House select subcommittee on the COVID pandemic, during a March hearing16, the general public does not precisely understand what the FDA means by terms such as “efficacy.” The public health establishment must make improvements17 in the way that it communicates with the American people concerning epidemiology, vaccine ingredients, the way we measure a vaccine’s effectiveness and the population-benefit purpose of vaccinations.
In return, politicians should not stand in their way or throw rocks. Suggesting that the best possible scientific judgments about social distancing and masks were simply drawn out of thin air, is irresponsible. So are misrepresentations of epidemiology and vaccine science. Claiming that vaccines were authorized or mandated without adequate study fails to take into account the rigorous study of COVID vaccines, the meticulous balancing of risks and benefits that occurred, and the still ongoing, vigilant post-marketing surveillance of safety and effectiveness.
At this time, Congress should be focused on assuring readiness for future emerging disease threats. This is both a public health and national security imperative. Systems that foster the balance of sufficient liability protection, adequate injury compensation, sustained innovation and public trust are imperative to that readiness.
Our country has a bipartisan history of compensating the injured and shielding manufacturers from being inundated with lawsuits that would threaten the industry. Vaccines sometimes cause rare adverse reactions, and we must promptly and adequately compensate vaccine-injured persons so that they are not treated as mere collateral damage.
Past liability threats18 contributed to dwindling market participation that threatened our national readiness, which led Presidents Reagan and Bush to sign programs into law that provide both liability protection and injury compensation - the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)19 and the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).20 The viability of these systems is, in turn, essential to maintaining public trust.
Today, bipartisan efforts are sorely needed to address shortcomings in current compensation programs.21 Yet, some members are focused on tearing these systems down22 and opening a flood of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. This could pose a serious threat to already fragile vaccine markets and our readiness to respond to the next pandemic.
Misinformation is unacceptable, as is failing to properly engage those with sincerely held misbeliefs. Lawmakers and public figures have a duty to avoid such misrepresentations. We public citizens, too, share a collective responsibility, to humanity, to avoid tolerating or perpetuating misinformation.
Congress and our nation’s public health officials should take the current moment to self-reflect, with humility and cautiousness, and resolve challenges with public confidence in our public and scientific institutions.
Richard Hughes IV is a Partner at Epstein Becker Green
To Tackle the Plastic Waste Crisis in Pharma, Here’s Where to Start
October 30th 2024By demonstrating big advancements in recycling, pharma companies will be much more likely to attract shareholders and other investors, giving themselves a leg up in the competition to lead the biopharmaceutical industry well into the future.
Solving One of the Hardest Questions in Cancer: How Do We Ensure Patient Access to Medicines?
October 16th 2024Pharmaceutical companies are facing new guidelines, laws, and regulations requiring a reconsideration of how to prioritize, develop, commercialize, and ultimately, secure access to medicines.