One vaccine will not be enough

The argument

Scientists are urging people not to treat a COVID-19 vaccine as "a silver bullet" to end the pandemic and return life to normal, and this position takes that warning as the reason the changes to daily life will outlast the vaccine itself. Kate Bingham, the Chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce, has issued warnings on this matter. She says the aim of the vaccine is to protect people from infection, but that it was unlikely this would be effective for everyone. That qualification matters for what follows: a measure protecting most people but not all does not on its own remove the conditions that made the restrictions necessary, because the people it fails remain exposed. The second limitation concerns duration rather than coverage. Many researchers suggest we may see different strains of COVID-19 over the years, and if that happens it is very unlikely that one vaccine will be enough. Bingham believes it is more probable that we will need regular revaccination to combat the virus — which reframes vaccination as an ongoing programme rather than a single event with a clear endpoint after it. The uncertainty is not settled by what is known so far. Studies looking into the mutations found in COVID-19 have so far found little evidence of mutation, which might seem reassuring on its own. Despite this, the increasing cases in many countries leave this to chance, and scientists warn that each new case is a dice roll: the more transmission continues, the more opportunities arise for that picture to change. On this reasoning a vaccine will doubtlessly be a good first step, but a first step is not a conclusion — we all need to do more to ensure a smooth transition out of the pandemic, and that continued effort is precisely what a clean return to the old normal would have ruled out.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The first vaccine will buy us more time to continue to research the virus and its possible mutations. Studies so far have not found a significant level of mutation in its virulence. This doesn’t mean it is impossible. But if this continues to be the case, perhaps one vaccine could be enough to help us overcome this pandemic.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Individual protection is the wrong standard. A vaccine that protects most recipients and blunts severe illness changes what the disease does to a population even where it fails in particular people. [Rejecting P2] The mutation claim was speculative when made, as the argument itself concedes in reporting little evidence of significant mutation. And needing periodic revaccination is compatible with life returning to something recognisable — it already is for influenza. [Rejecting P3] The conclusion overshoots. That a vaccine is not sufficient on its own does not show that the changes to daily life will persist; it shows that other measures matter during the transition out of the pandemic.