It’s time to start paying people to take vaccines to boost take-up. That’s according to Dr. Raymond Duch, an Oxford academic writing in the Financial Times. This is the lesson he’s taken from the Covid pandemic, apparently.
Dr. Duch, a Director of the Centre for Experimental Social Sciences at Nuffield College, Oxford, writing in collaboration with Professor Philip Clarke, an economist of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, says that their trial of this measure in Ghana (yes, they actually got ethical approval to try it out – now published in Nature) proves that it works. By works they mean that yes, some poorer people will offer you their arm if you offer them hard cash – in this case an amount equivalent to around 15% of the weekly food bill, which is $3 is Ghana and may be around $14 in the U.S. But by ‘works’ they don’t mean that it successfully reduces Covid deaths or illness. They didn’t look at that. And since Ghana had almost zero confirmed Covid deaths, we can assume the (positive) impact of vaccination in the country was non-existent (even allowing that official Covid deaths may be under-counted).
“Some will ask whether paying people to adopt good health behaviours is a desirable route to take,” writes Dr. Duch. Well, quite. Ethical strictures around informed consent usually forbid any form of inducement to take drugs or undertake medical procedures (except in an acknowledged experimental context such as a clinical trial). But this isn’t what Dr. Duch means. He means, will it reduce vaccine take-up in the long run. “Supplementing social norms with cash could erode the public’s commitment to complying with important health campaigns.” But not to worry: it all looks good on that front: “Our Ghana trial explored the effect of the scheme on individuals who did not receive cash for vaccines. Consistent with another recent trial in Sweden, our results showed no negative effect on vaccination levels.”
Vaccine take-up is the only metric Dr. Duch regards as of any significance, apparently.
Yet the trial was hardly a runaway success, even by these narrow lights. The payment group only had 9% higher take-up than the non-payment group – practically a rounding error. This was in February 2022, too, when Omicron was running wild, though perhaps the well-known lower fatality rate reduced demand. It seems most people aren’t willing to sell you their personal medical decision-making, even if they do live in a developing country.
But since Dr. Duch seems to regard this as a way of reaching a 70% vaccination rate (he doesn’t explain why 70% is desirable; perhaps he is still operating under the discredited assumption that this will stop the spread of the virus) he presumably sees it as proof of concept. Simply increase the pay and more people will come forward, is maybe his logic. If so, I suspect he would be disappointed in this. He writes:
The international community spent more than $20bn supporting COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in low- and middle-income countries. It was one of the costliest public health initiatives ever targeted at these nations. Despite this, Africa trailed behind the rest of the world in terms of vaccination rates: a more equitable global pattern of jabs would have prevented the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives. And incentivising vaccination with cash would have saved many of them.
Frankly, I find it hard to understand how this study gained ethical approval. Maybe it helped that it was in Ghana; I doubt it would have been allowed in the U.K. It must also have helped that it was an economics study, not a medical one. According to the methods section of the paper it had ethical oversight from the University of Oxford Economics Department. I don’t suppose that department is overflowing with expertise in medical ethics.
Actually, there is one other metric Dr. Duch recognises.
But simply giving cash to some of the poorest individuals in the world, even ignoring the public health benefits, would have positive outcomes. In our trial the effective $3 cash incentive represented about 15% of weekly food expenditures. Scaled up to national levels this would have represented an important economic boost during a severe negative economic shock. In Ghana, for example, a $3 financial incentive would have injected $70m directly into the hands of consumers if vaccination rates reached the goal of 70%.
Vaccination boost and economic boost: what’s not to like?
“The wake of the pandemic is a good time to reflect on how to best navigate global public health challenges when they arise in future,” concludes Dr. Duch. “Small cash incentives to promote uptake could be a game-changer.”
The comments, even in the very mainstream FT, were universally negative beneath this article, which was a relief. “This is so unethical it makes me puke,” says the top-rated comment. I couldn’t put it better myself.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I certainly think the tweets should be allowed to stand as I am more or less an absolutist as far as free speech goes.
Regarding the “cancel culture” aspect, she hasn’t lost her job, just a “title”. I’m not clear what being an “Emeritus Professor” gives you/entails, but losing the status doesn’t seem like it’s a disproportionate “punishment”. I guess it might be a bit like being a “brand ambassador” – you represent the organisation so maybe the organisation is justified in getting rid of you if you say things you feel bring the organization into disrepute. But then let’s say you are a car salesman – should it be possible to sack you for tweets you don’t like if the tweets are not about cars? Probably not…
There are many paradoxes with free speech. I have always tended to think that speech should be free with no ifs or buts, except when inciting violence or causing public disorder, eg shouting “fire” in a busy building when there is no actual fire. ——–But let’s suppose I work for a company making Televison’s and I go out into the street and loudly proclaim that those televisions are heap of crap? ——-Just because speech should be free does not mean we should always exercise that right. As Gerald Ratner found out.
Yes, as I posted a minute ago somewhere else in this thread regarding the Ford car salesman.
The phrase about the conference attendees as “racist, nonce and shithouse in Britain” is quite accurate.
That’s one of the reasons many of us left the Labour Party.
What made you join the Labour Party in the first place and what made you leave?
As a peace loving libertarian old socialist I joined the Labour Party to vote for Jeremy Corbyn as leader a long with hundreds of thousands of others.
The eurosceptic Corbyn was the best person in my opinion to lead us to Brexit which would benefit ordinary people.
The EU wets and Zionists within the Labour Party and media fabricated a hate campaign against Corbyn and when he honourably resigned thousands of us left the Party.
Starmer is an “establishment” tool and Labour is almost as bad as the Tories.
Thanks for your answer. I am not a fan of Corbyn but I think he would have been better than Starmer (not a high bar). I also thought the campaign against him looked pretty bogus.
I struggle to see how libertarianism and socialism can be at all compatible, though of course we all know that capitalism at least as currently practiced doesn’t guarantee liberty either.
I don’t know if they ever speak to each other but I would have loved to be a fly on the during conversations between Jeremy and his brother Piers who of course was such a stalwart and early opponent of lockdowns.
Many people see the word “socialism” or “socialist” as meaning USSR type government control. I don’t believe in that.
I believe all governments should be looking after the interests of the many and NOT the interests of the moneyed few and I would tax the rich to pay for it which makes me a “socialist” in it’s broader sense.
I support all types of freedoms particularly freedom of speech and therefore I am libertarian.
There are many references to “libertarian socialism” on the internet.
I had been following Piers Corbyn for years and loved his stance against global warming.
I wrote at the time that I was hoping some of Piers scepticism would rub off on his brother. Unfortunately it didn’t and both were set up to fail as they were dangerous to the “establishment”.
Thanks. I see private property as an essential part of liberty. Also I think it’s easy for appeals to the “common good” to lead to removal of individual freedoms unless most people are sincere in their belief in freedom and vigilant – probably you are, but if so then I think you are rare. Who decides who the “moneyed few” are, and how much they should be taxed, and who the “many” are, and how much the “many” should be given.
Anyway, it’s good that there are at least some lockdown/climate sceptics on the political left.
What a total cowbag. And from somebody in her position, I definitely think she deserves to be stripped of her titles, because her behaviour is completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated. No wonder higher education establishments are a breeding ground for this sort of hate and intolerance if people like her are molding young, impressionable minds and are held up as role models. Antisemitism is on the rise everywhere, as is general anti-Israel hate. It does make me laugh that the woketards and useful idiots that bleat on about tolerance are evidently the least tolerant of all, but I’m sure their lack of self-awareness ensures the hypocrisy is lost on them. This latest report from Germany;
”A survey published this week by the German Central Council of Jews reports that a third of Jews in Germany have experienced some type of antisemitic attack since October 7th. The attacks have ranged from antisemitic graffiti to personal insults, and almost all communities report increased psychological pressure, receiving threatening calls and threatening emails.
A stunning 80% of the Jewish religious congregation leaders surveyed stated that life has become more unsafe for Jews—specifically Jews who wish to express their faith in public in any form—since the October massacre.
Central Council president Josef Schuster called the reports “shocking” and noted the growth of the trend, telling Die Welt, newspaper, “Since October 7, we have been experiencing an increase in anti-Semitic statements and actions from left-wing, unfortunately also academic circles.”
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/germany-shocking-rise-in-left-wing-antisemitic-acts/
More in this article. Max points for irony that she apparently specializes in ‘inclusion’. Jesus wept!
”The ex-Labour councillor has since deleted the tweet but other inflammatory posts by Bradley remain online.
In one she says about the conference: “God preserve us. I’d walk through mud and nettles rather than listen to these evil people.”
Another message from Bradley, posted on 5 December, reads, “All Zionist supporters should go straight to hell. They are demons not human beings”.
The professor has written about inclusion and discrimination. She describes herself as an “ex-Labour councillor”, a “passionate socialist” and an academic who studies “inequalities of class, gender, ethnicity”.
https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/academic-specialist-in-inclusion-calls-for-evil-jewish-conference-to-be-blown-up-rn4haveo
But – obviously as always – the good man cannot name a single, actual example that would lend some substance to his public handwringing. And while the article has Germany (!!1) in its headline, the closest it gets anything which actually happened is a quote from Yanis Varoufakis, ie, a Greek, and unspecific claims about stuff said to happen at US universities (according to a Washington Post journalist).
Political honesty at its finest.
I have no skin in the middle east sectarian clutter. I don’t even know many Jews or Muslims well or personally. All I know is that Jews don’t want to drive into me on a bridge. They don’t seem to want to blow my children up at a pop concert, and they don’t seem to want to behead a policeman. —-ie I don’t seem to have to worry about Jews so much, and it is our own personal situation that is the most important to us all.
There are those who have received honours who have foisted great physical and mental harms on the population of this country. They should be stripped of these as a priority.
We could address those who cause verbal harm next.
I’d understand this as sarcastic remark, especially when considering the Every racist-statement as blowing up the venue would certainly not demonstrate that whoever did was was morally superior to those gathering there, rather, that he was just the same kind of irrational, hate-driven person he claimed the others to be. But that’s obviously to subtle for peope with an axe to grind.
Well now you are seeing people arrested for words on placards:
“A pro-Palestine protester has been pictured waving a ‘Final Solution’ placard comparing Israel to Nazi Germany as thousands of people descended on the capital on Saturday to call for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
Police earlier said they had arrested two people over ‘offensive’ placards as pictures circulating online showed signs referring to Israel’s sustained attacks on the Gaza Strip as ‘genocide’.
The march began at Bank Junction at midday on Saturday and is set finish in Westminster later this afternoon, following a route that takes it past St Paul’s Cathedral and Somerset House.
On X, the force said its Public Order crime team are investigating a series of signs for possible offences.
One of the signs made a reference to the ‘final solution’ – a term used by the Nazis to refer to the genocide of Jews.
A second read featured pictures of Gaza with the caption: ‘Israel’s Gaza Holocaust’, while a third added: ‘One Holocaust does not justify another’.
Protesters are calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza after the US vetoed a UN resolution last night, as the body warned a humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in the region. “
Tell me again which side the power establishment is taking on this issue?
What is free speech here anymore?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12844903/pro-Palsestinian-protesters-London-ceasefire-Israel-Hamas.html
‘Retired sociology professor.’ The sociology part of the title has never been held in high esteem in the environs I frequent. An encounter between my Royal Marines pal’s father and a hitch-hiking student illustrates the point. En-route back to Burnley from a business meeting in Reading, father-Bill stopped to offer a lift to a uni-scarf wearing student hitching northwards. The journey proceeded amicably for over an hour when in the middle of nowhere, Bill happened to enquire what subject the youth was studying at Uni. “Sociology” he replied, whereupon the brakes were applied with gusto and the order “Get out” was issued.The student duly did so and Bill drove off.
He had the opportunity to engage with the student on the subject, understand their motivations for that area of study and perhaps offer them a different perspective but instead chose to leave the student with the idea that the preceding generations are ignorant. Student goes on to become a woke crusader.
It happened the best part of 50 years ago. Woke hadn’t been invented. That ‘gem’ was 30 years into the future.
Bill acted like a total prick.
Probably only picked-up the youth because he was hoping for a blow-job.
Governments blow-up real venues and kill real people for nothing more than greed and power and we’re supposed to get precious about comments from some retiree?
“Avon and Somerset Constabulary confirmed that the post was recorded as an “incident of malicious communications” and was being investigated.”
There is/was already a law in place for this ‘incident’. Freedom of speech is the right to say whatever you want as long as you don’t incite violence. Therefore this is NOT an “incident of malicious communications” but an incitement to violence.
It doesn’t seem like a very serious “incitement to violence”. I don’t know what that law says or what the case law is on “incitement”, but I think must be more subtle than taking statements at face value regardless of who said them, the context etc. If not then it just becomes yet another way for people with power to shut down speech they don’t like.
Also don’t think the police has any business investigating “malicious communications” of this kind.
Speaking of an ”incitement to violence”, I’ve got max respect for this patriotic lad. The clip does take on quite the comedy sketch vibe though with the ‘ladder off’ segment, but it’s a real shame we don’t get to see the outcome because he’s outnumbered at the end. If only he’d had a fellow patriot pal to even things up. Bless him though. He gets my ”Balls of Steel” Award of the Day;
https://twitter.com/RadioGenoa/status/1733340522863812927
Her comment seems to be no more offensive that Fat Girl Brand suggesting throwing acid over Farage. Funny how Brand was feted for her comment.
Or George Osborne seeking to have a chopped-up Theresa May in his fridge.
She has clearly broughther employer into disrepute and that is a sacking offence in most of private business.
She’s retired so isn’t employed. Possibly getting a nice USS final salary pension. The actions of the uni are a shield against a predictable campaign demanding x, y and z to appease those who would censor us all.
See my ramblings elsewhere in this thread on the grey areas I see with this kind of thinking. Let’s say you post on social media about your views on covid or net zero or whatever, and your employer sees them and decides it has brought them into disrepute. I think there should be protection for employees unless your speech is directly connected to the job e.g. you are a car salesman for Ford and you post stuff saying Fords are crap and people should buy an Austin Allegro instead.
One of the main reasons I post anonymously is that my political views are the polar opposite of the former owner of the firm I work for – I could easily have seen him firing me and I didn’t want to take the chance.
An Austin Allegro? You must be about my age mate. ——-People should always post anonymously. Because it is up to other people to attack the argument not the arguer.
It was inspired by the username of someone who posts on the excellent Lockdown Sceptics subreddit, and yes I do remember the Allegro
Good point about attacking the argument though I also agree with the point Peter Hitchens makes to those who attack him on social media – he posts as himself, whereas many who launch ad-hominem attacks on him post anonymously. I think anonymity should be used to give you freedom to express unpopular views rather than simply being an arse.
She must be prosecuted.
If the police send 4 heavies to intimidate a councillor in Northamptonshire for upholding free, Christian, speech, why should she be exempt?
Two wrongs don’t make a right. An offense named malicious communication shouldn’t even exist, as it’s impossible to define that. Any statement somebody makes in public will give rise to a wide variety of different interpretations, even to interpretations which completely contradict its actual meaning. This is even worse than Orwell’s thought crime because it’s a Someone else thought crime and people certainly shouldn’t be prosecuted or punished because someone else has chosen to think something about them.
The police should also have something more important to do than to investigate aimless Twitter babble.