Dame Kate Bingham, who led the UK Vaccine Taskforce during the height of the Covid pandemic, recently opened up about the internal conflicts and frustrations she faced within the UK government as the pandemic response unfolded. In her testimony to the ongoing Covid inquiry, Bingham painted a picture of “open warfare” between government departments, which made the pandemic response more difficult than it needed to be.
Bingham, who was appointed to head the Vaccine Taskforce in May 2020, was initially focused on securing vaccines for the UK. Under her leadership, the taskforce was instrumental in negotiating contracts for millions of vaccine doses, working closely with pharmaceutical companies to ensure rapid delivery and distribution. However, as Bingham began her work, she quickly realized that the scope of the taskforce’s mission was being undermined by bureaucratic infighting and competing interests between government departments.
One of the major points of contention she highlighted was the lack of coordination between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), which she was a part of, and the Department of Health and Social Care. These two departments, which were supposed to work together to tackle the pandemic, were instead embroiled in internal “warfare,” which hampered their effectiveness. Bingham, with her background in therapeutics, advocated for the inclusion of therapeutics—such as antibody treatments—in the taskforce’s remit. However, her efforts to push forward the development of therapeutic treatments met with resistance from other government officials who had different priorities.
The focus of the Vaccine Taskforce, at that time, was primarily on developing and securing vaccines, but Bingham argued that it was equally important to protect those who couldn’t respond to vaccines, such as the immunocompromised. She pointed out that people in this group, who were especially vulnerable to severe illness from Covid, were not given the priority they deserved by the government. She revealed that there was a conscious decision to deprioritize these individuals in favor of those who were more likely to be vaccinated. This decision, Bingham stated, was both ethically and morally wrong and went against the government’s stated goal to protect the entire population.
Bingham’s concerns were particularly focused on Evusheld, a monoclonal antibody treatment that was being developed by AstraZeneca. This treatment was aimed at providing protection for people who could not take the vaccine, such as those with compromised immune systems. However, despite being available in the private sector, Evusheld was never procured by the UK government. Bingham was particularly vocal about this, expressing her belief that the lack of support for Evusheld represented a failure to meet the government’s obligations to protect vulnerable groups.
As Bingham continued in her role as the vaccines tsar, she was confronted with frustrations beyond the lack of coordination between government departments. She criticized the “groupthink” that pervaded Whitehall, where decision-making often felt sluggish and disconnected from actual outcomes. In government, she pointed out, there was a tendency to write policy papers and engage in endless review processes without actually focusing on achieving tangible results. She contrasted this with the private sector, where performance and delivery were closely monitored, and failure to meet goals could result in job loss or diminished reputation. This lack of accountability in the civil service, according to Bingham, significantly hindered the government’s ability to respond efficiently to the crisis.
The failure to prioritize the clinically vulnerable and the internal struggles within the UK government are just a few examples of the many challenges faced by Bingham and the Vaccine Taskforce during the pandemic. Her testimony sheds light on the complexities of managing a public health crisis on a national scale and highlights the crucial role of leadership in navigating these challenges.
In the face of these difficulties, Bingham’s frustration with the government’s response is palpable. She felt that the UK government’s strategy was not aligned with the goals they had set out to achieve, and she was deeply disillusioned with the lack of urgency in protecting the most vulnerable. The conflict between the desire to protect the wider population through mass vaccination campaigns and the need to safeguard the most at-risk individuals revealed the deep flaws in the pandemic response.
Ultimately, Bingham’s testimony serves as a critique of not just the government’s pandemic strategy, but also the wider bureaucratic systems that made it difficult to implement an effective response. Despite her pivotal role in securing vaccines for the UK, Bingham’s experience paints a picture of frustration, miscommunication, and missed opportunities. The consequences of these issues were particularly felt by the vulnerable, who were left behind in the rush to vaccinate the general population.
As the UK continues to grapple with the long-term effects of the pandemic, Bingham’s revelations are a reminder of the importance of clear leadership, effective communication, and the need for a more cohesive and accountable approach to public health crises. Her story serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of internal conflict within government, and the ethical and moral implications of deprioritizing the most vulnerable members of society.