Kessler: A lot of things contributed to people’s feelings about the virus and the vaccines. I don’t think we should underestimate the effect that the last several years has had on all of us. It was a major upheaval for society and there’s not a family that’s not been affected. Anything that is that traumatic, it’s going to produce very strong feelings.
The fact is that 226 million people received their primary series, and 94 percent of people over 65 got vaccinated. When’s the last time 226 million people agreed on anything, did anything?
We have to be realistic on what people are going to do. There are a lot of things in public health we wish people would do that they don’t. Taken as a piece, we did pretty well, considering the extent of the upheaval caused by this pandemic.
Cancryn: What about these politicians, lawmakers and pundits who have made it their brand to question that progress, to question the vaccines and the need for there to be a continued response?
Kessler: Here’s the hard part. Questioning is an inherent part of science. Questioning is always important to learn and improve what we do.
But there’s a difference between questioning and undermining the basic facts. Creating enough doubt so people go, well, maybe I don’t need to do this.
I’ve lived this before. In 1952, with the first data that smoking caused cancer. The mantra of the industry was, “not proven, not proven, not proven.” It created enough doubt that it gave people a crutch who didn’t want to quit. It gave them a reason to continue to smoke.
These vaccines are not perfect. But certainly, if you’re over 50, if you have any risk factors, the benefit/risk [ratio] is just overwhelming. So yes, ask questions. But please make sure that people who need this, whose lives are really at risk, take advantage of a very important potentially lifesaving tool.
Cancryn: That’s interesting that you’re seeing parallels to the playbook from tobacco.
Kessler: I don’t think that’s intentional. I just think that one has to be careful when one injects doubt in people’s minds. If you inject that doubt, it just makes the job that much harder to get people to do stuff when it’s already hard to get people to do things that are in their health interest.
Cancryn: The difference this time around is that a lot of those injecting that doubt are now the leaders of one of the two main political parties.
Kessler: There are certainly those who are using it for whatever rhetoric, but I think a majority of the country will push that aside. The fact is, 226 million people got the primary series. Push comes to shove, many of those who are being critical of vaccines, I think quietly they’ve gotten the vaccine.
Cancryn: So you feel some level of optimism that when it comes to public health and science, most of us are still operating with the same set of shared facts.
Kessler: The last three years have been so intense, the stakes have been so high, we’ve learned so much. We made mistakes. I just think, give it time. But no doubt we have to do a better job on disinformation, because this virus is not done with us yet.
Cancryn: Do you feel like there’s an identifiable solution to that disinformation? Take Tucker Carlson, for example, who has a big audience and has proven willing to question and inject doubt into just about anything. It doesn’t worry you that he has a platform to take things that should be scientifically settled, bring them up and question them again?
Kessler: I saw my job as making sure if you wanted a vaccine, if you wanted an antiviral, it was there, it worked, you didn’t have to live in fear that you were going to die from this disease. I did very few public appearances; others did that.
But very early on I said to someone I’m close with that I really wished I could go on Tucker Carlson and have that conversation.
