Skip to main content

COVID-19 vaccine allocation: addressing the United Kingdom’s colour-blind strategy

Our new paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine discusses whether the government should take ethnicity into account when establishing priority groups for Covid-19 vaccination as one component of a strategy to target health inequalities. 

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups, resulting in higher rates of infection, hospitalisation and death. The COVID-19 pandemic has also exposed the pre-existing racial and socioeconomic inequalities in the UK. However, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation has omitted ethnic minorities from the top priority groups which include older age, frontline health and social care workers, and care home staff and residents. The invisibility of these vulnerable groups from the priority list and the worsening healthcare inequities and inequalities are putting ethnic minorities at a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 illness and death.

The UK’s vaccine allocation strategies have the potential to further exacerbate the pre-existing, persistent but avoidable, racial inequalities that the COVID-19 pandemic and the wider governmental and societal response have harshly exposed and amplified. Dismissing the racial and socioeconomic disadvantages that ethnic groups face may result in a devastating impact lasting far beyond the end of the pandemic. 

Controlling further outbreaks and, ultimately, ending the pandemic will require implementation of approaches that target ethnic minorities as well as ensuring that vaccine allocation strategies are effective, fair and justifiable for all.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01410768211001581

Media Coverage

https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/national/19148392.ethnic-minorities-put-risk-colour-blind-vaccine-distribution-strategy/

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-03/s-uc030821.php

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-ethnic-minorities-at-higher-risk-of-dying-with-coronavirus-because-of-colour-blind-vaccine-rollout-doctors-warn-12241078

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-vaccine-doses-uk-ethnic-minorities-latest-b1814699.html

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/vaccine-strategy-puts-ethnic-minorities-20031089

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9342467/BAME-communities-risk-UKs-colour-blind-Covid-vaccine-strategy-experts-warn.html

https://www.three.fm/news/uk-news/covid-19-ethnic-minorities-at-higher-risk-of-dying-with-coronavirus-because-of-colour-blind-vaccine-rollout-doctors-warn/

https://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/article/splash-74

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...
Post a Comment
Read more

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...
Post a Comment
Read more

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care.  Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful.  This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...
Post a Comment
Read more