What else should a responsible government have done? Public health officials had identified three ways in which the immunisation of infants could be improved with a new five-in-one jab. First by replacing the live oral polio vaccine, which carries a small risk of causing paralytic polio, with an inactivated vaccine. Second by bringing in a new whooping cough vaccine, which would produce fewer sore arms, fewer increased temperatures, and fewer grizzly children in the 48 hours after immunisation. And third by removing the mercury-based preservative, thiomersal, from the whooping cough vaccine as part of a worldwide aim of reducing exposure to the element. In preparation for the switch from the current four-in-one jab (for diphtheria, tetanus, whooping, hib) to a five-in-one (that would include polio), a letter from the consultant in communicable diseases at the health protection agency was sent to all GPs. A formal launch by Prof Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer, was planned for yesterday.
Alas, the letter was leaked to the media despite its plea for confidentiality, so that after a weekend of speculative stories, yesterday dawned to tabloid front-page scare splashes under headlines such as "Chaos Over 5-in-1 baby Jab" (Mail). Ignore the fact that babies receive five vaccinations in one sitting currently (four plus one); or that the new jab would have less ingredients; or that the 5-in-l jab had been given to millions of children in Canada and proved to have an excellent safety record. All the anti-vaccination voices, who have opposed the MMR vaccine, turned out in force and repeated their pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. There would be a vaccine overload (it would be lower); the combination should be replaced by five single jabs (with the increased likelihood that some would be missed); what safety checks has it had (many compared with the Institute of Medicine in the US and Europe's medical evaluation agency).
What was missing yesterday was a plan B - an organised recovery exercise in the event of the plan being leaked. Instead of a single wise head - the chief medical officer - there were multiple scientists with no training in how to communicate to lay people. The public have no wish to know why "a cellular" vaccine is better than "whole cell". What they want is reassurance. The people they most trust is their GP. The department was right to alert GPs, but wrong not to have Sir Liam standing by when it went wrong. He is a doctor, too, and knows how to talk to people.
