HUMANITY ON SCREEN

By Grace Thompson

In the past few weeks, we have seen our political leaders on television more than ever before. Regular press briefings, updates to the House of Commons and more breakfast appearances and interviews than the biggest political junkie could wish for.

Even scientists have not been spared the media scrutiny of their personality antics. They have also been thrown into the public gaze in a way that is probably unusual and perhaps even uncomfortable for them. In past years, the face of the Chief Medical Officer may never have been known to the public. This year, we can all recognise him just by sight. The chirpiness of Sir Simon Stevens, the eloquence of Patrick Vallance the honest emotion of Jonathan Van-Tam are all now familiar traits.

Perhaps in a time where we have fewer interactions with our support networks and other people in general, it is somehow comforting to relate, in some way, to the frequent personalities on our screens, even if those methods of relating aren’t always positive! Just as our closest friends and family members get on our nerves from time to time, so we have our favourite political and authority figures who we admire or the ones we may even love to laugh at. 

Surely there is no coincidence that in a year that has caused political advisers and super-forecasters to catch the attention of the media like never before, we have also seen the return of the iconic Spitting Image show, gobbling up new material in their hands with greed. 

In what now seems like an age ago, Theresa May defied past prime ministerial trends by pushing away the show glitzy, cozy-up-to-me PM style of Cameron and Blair. The limelight wasn’t natural to her, so heading up the history-making negotiations of a country leaving the European Union probably wasn’t the best match. Boris Johnson, on the other hand, loves the limelight but probably didn’t bargain for having quite as much airtime as he has had to experience in the past few months, and with very little good news to deliver. 

Trust in our leaders currently requires frequent interaction, even if only virtual, but it requires even more than that. Research is being carried out as to why it seems that many female leaders of countries experiencing Covid have handled the pandemic particularly well. Fierce critics of Nicola Sturgeon, for example, suddenly see a new side to her and praise her sensible decisions and incisive timing. Jacinda Adern sees New Zealand successfully drop to 0 recorded cases and ‘does a little dance’ in her living room to celebrate.  

I don’t think anyone who heard Matt Hancock’s voice shake as he spoke of losing his step-grandfather to Covid could doubt his determination to fight it. Authority can be better followed when those in authority are also seen to be as human as the rest of us. Our leaders, after all, are not immortals in ivory towers, they are flesh and blood who can be infected with viruses as easily as the next person and who can love and lose as we all do. So perhaps, in a time when the best and worst of our humanity is entangling simultaneously, what we need is to see the authentic human side of our leaders on the screen.

Grace Thompson

Grace Thompson

HOW WE DISTRIBUTE THE SUCCESSFUL COVID-19 TREATMENT WILL BE A KEY TEST OF OUR HUMANITY

By Johnny Luk

The health, social and economic progress of millions of people is being held hostage by the current Coronavirus pandemic. Countries and cities are in various stages of containment. Some, seemingly, are beginning to open up, whilst others, including much of Europe, North America, and our own city of London, are in near full lockdown, but all are reeling from its impact. No one is truly spared. 

Regardless of the mandatory social distancing measures and copious handwashing - there is only one true way to resolve this health crisis and restart the world's economy, and that's to have an effective treatment against the disease, either through a new or adapted drug, or a vaccine to convey immunity.

The globe's top research labs and pharmaceutical companies are in a race to deliver a workable treatment, with over 40 separate studies currently taking place. Drug discovery and vaccine creation would normally take years. But, as we have already seen, when there is sufficient focus, when data is shared transparently, coupled with imagination and the latest technology and resources – then the pace of innovation can reach breakneck speed, with some research centres already entering the early trial phase within just a few months.

The reward is clear, the team that cracks this will be responsible for saving countless lives, and if done quickly, dodge a global depression, thus preserving entire industries and millions of livelihoods, surely worthy of any Nobel Prize. But when that moment comes, it will also present a fundamental test of our humanity.

The discoverer and the country that administers it, will, for a brief second, have unimaginable power. Questions will be asked, how will we distribute it, who gets first dibs, who, if anyone, will own the patent? Many countries are thinking about these big questions already.

The moral thing to do, the path which I believe Londoners would take if we were in this fortunate position, would be to immediately share the formula - open-sourced, with no strings attached, to every country regulator out there, so they can make their own independent judgments, and enable each respective industry to mass-produce the vaccine, starting with those who are most vulnerable.

Independent pharmaceutical companies, both keen to help save lives, but also with one eye on shareholders, might be tempted to hang on to the patents and take advantage of any monopoly if they own any successful research. But they will do so at their own peril. The public is in no mood to follow commercial norms, and they, through their elected Governments, would pass whatever law and break whatever patent clause necessary for the sake of public health. That is the right thing to do.

No vaccine manufacturer should make a profit on this or hold anyone else to ransom, and that extends to the Nation States too. Wealthier countries must support nations that do not have the capacity to manufacture or distribute treatments, recognising the particular challenge in unstable regions, where multinational bodies will need a role in medical distribution to avoid factions using it as a tool to seize political power. Ultimately, the sooner we defeat this virus, the more lives we save and the faster we can drive confidence back into the economy, and that will benefit us all.

So, when that discovery comes, the respective country, at the peak of its soft power, will have a big responsibility, and a choice. If done right, by helping the world recover without strings attached and transparently working together, they would be rightly praised. Done badly, perhaps through the temptation of rationing to their own citizens or putting tough political and financial terms on international distribution and intellectual property, and they, and we as a species would have failed both the practical and moral test of humanity.

 

Follow Johnny’s Twitter