No, Boris Johnson, greed and capitalism did not deliver the UK’s successful vaccination programme

The story of the AstraZeneca vaccine is one of collaboration involving the public and private sectors, and Boris Johnson is actually underplaying the role of his own government, writes James Moore

The prime minister gets his jab – delivered not by greed but by the NHS (PA)

Greed and capitalism are behind the UK’s successful vaccination rollout, Boris Johnson bombastically declared in a call with Tory MPs, putting his foot squarely in his mouth as he did so. 

Realising his error, the prime minister swiftly sought to retract the comments. But by then the damage was done. The circumstances in which he made the gaffe, which was breathtaking in both its crassness and its ignorance, meant that it was guaranteed to be leaked. 

There’s been a delphic silence from Downing Street since then, but there will doubtless be those among the army of toadies in the Tory ecosystem who will leap to his defence (thus prolonging the row) by insisting that, if you strip aside Johnson’s unfortunate language, his core point was right: this is capitalism’s triumph. 

Big pharma, with its profit motive, its dividends and its shareholders, has come through for the world, with Anglo-Swedish AstraZeneca lining up alongside Pfizer, Modena, Johnson & Johnson and all the rest to rescue us all. So let’s all get down with Gordon “Greed is Good” Gekko. 

That’s where the ignorance part comes in. 

Read more:

• Johnson faces barrage of criticism for claiming ‘greed’ is behind Covid vaccine success
• Tougher EU vaccine export controls could hit UK

The current vaccination programme is a three-pronged affair, involving research and development, manufacturing and distribution, and, finally, delivery. 

Let’s use the Oxford-Astra jab as a case study. Despite the rollercoaster ride this vaccine has been on, it is playing a key role in the UK’s efforts to bring the pandemic under control. It also happens to be the one that’s primed my immune system to be ready should I endure a repeat encounter with the virus – not to mention the prime minister’s. 

The research work was done at Oxford University’s Jenner Institute, initially with the backing of the venerable institution’s own funds, and later with assistance from the government. So in hailing capitalism and greed, Johnson was actually deflecting some of the credit away from his administration. That must be some sort of first for a politician. 

The university, a not-for-profit academic institution, partnered with AstraZeneca to take advantage of the latter’s manufacturing and distribution capacity, which I suppose is where the “greed is good” bit could be said to come in.

Astra, however, would surely protest that description and perhaps with good reason. To explain why, I’ll leave it to Professor Louise Richardson, Oxford University’s vice-chancellor, who outlined the thinking behind an important feature of the tie-up in a speech last year. 

“We were anxious to ensure, on the one hand, that we should not be a party to profiteering during a pandemic and, on the other hand, that we should not repeat the mistake of the early 1940s, when Oxford academics discovered penicillin but handed all rights off to American companies. 

“We required that any partner would agree that a vaccine, if proven effective, would be distributed at cost for the duration of the pandemic, and in perpetuity in the developing world. AstraZeneca agreed and are now overseeing trials around the world and manufacturing at risk so that if the vaccine proves effective, distribution can begin immediately,” she explained. 

We required that any partner would agree that a vaccine, if proven effective, would be distributed at cost for the duration of the pandemic, and in perpetuity in the developing world

Astra will be able to make a profit after that, and to reward its shareholders in so doing. 

But the approach could hardly be further from the “greed is good” sort of capitalism Johnson referred to, exemplified by Oliver Stone’s biting satire Wall Street, in which the aforementioned Gekko, played by Michael Douglas, uttered the by now (in)famous line. 

The importance of that part of the deal shouldn’t be underestimated: The virus will only be squashed if poorer countries, as well as rich ones, are able to successfully run vaccination programmes. Without them, the vexatious oily bundle of proteins and RNA will find it much easier to develop new strains with which to plague the world afresh. 

Astra’s £3-a-shot vaccine at cost ought to play a key role in this plan. It is much more affordable than the more nakedly capitalistic Pfizer treatment, which costs around £15. The latter also requires specialist equipment to store it at the required ultra-low temperatures. 

This brings us to the final part of the programme: delivery. This has been accomplished though the efforts of the NHS and its staff, but also, yes, with assistance from Johnson’s government. 

So with his comments the prime minister was underplaying his own administration’s role, not just in the development of the vaccine, but also in its delivery. That’s quite astonishing. Health secretary Matt Hancock, and his team, could be forgiven for feeling more than a little wounded. 

The NHS, a state-funded institution, has, via doctors’ surgeries, been in charge of contacting patients to offer jabs. Its personnel have been on hand at vaccination centres to put needles in people’s arms. There’s been a lot of volunteer involvement here too. People have been giving their time, motivated not by greed but by the public good. 

The health service, and Hancock’s department, have been running public information campaigns with the aim of persuading the public of the benefits of getting vaccinated, and the same is true of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

Private industry, and finance, have clearly played an important role, and it would be wrong to try to deny or downplay it. 

But the development of the Oxford-Astra vaccine is a story of collaboration and cooperation, involving the use of public, non-profit and private capital and expertise. Johnson might care to reflect on that. His statement appears to be the result of thinking that is not just inaccurate, but also terribly dated.