Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Submit Guest Post

Queen’s vaccine example

By Amit Roy

THE Queen has set an example by letting it be known that she and Prince Philip have both had the Covid-19 vaccine in an effort to reassure those still worried about its safety.


The vaccines were ad­ministered by a house­hold doctor at Windsor Castle where the royal couple have been living during the lockdown. By last Saturday (9), they were among 1.5 million people to have been vac­cinated. The only conces­sion made to them was that unlike other elderly folk, they did not have to queue in the cold.

It was the Queen who decided that the British public should be told she and Philip, who are 94 and 99 respectively, had been vaccinated. “To pre­vent inaccuracies and further speculation, Her Majesty decided that she would let it be known she has had the vaccination,” according to a Bucking­ham Palace source.

What was not revealed is whether they had the Oxford-AstraZeneca vac­cine or the one made by the Pfizer-BioNTech. Like everyone else, they will need a second dose in due course.

It is said the royal fam­ily has held progressive views on vaccination.

It was a very similar picture in 1950s Britain, during the programme to roll out a vaccine against polio. The disease, at its peak in the previous dec­ades, had paralysed or killed more than half a million people worldwide every year, many of them young children.

Despite the threat posed by poliomyelitis, the introduction of a vac­cine in 1956 by the newly established National Health Service was still greeted with suspicion by many parents. That was in part because of reports that some children in the US had developed polio and others died after tak­ing the new vaccine.

In a move designed to win round public opin­ion, the palace briefed the press that the Queen had approved the vacci­nation of her children, Charles and Anne, then aged eight and six.

In January 1957, news­papers, under headlines such as “The Queen de­cides on polio”, revealed that the royal children were each given two in­jections a month apart by Dr Wilfrid Percy Henry Sheldon, the Harley Street specialist who had served the Queen since her coronation.

There is little doubt that the actions of the royal family helped con­vince many to let their own children receive the vaccine, and over the fol­lowing months and years, millions more went on to do so. The vaccination programme helped cases fall dramatically and since the 1980s, no cases of the infection have been registered in the UK, despite it being still found in other countries across the world.

The real problem today is not the anti-vaccine lobby but whether the millions of doses required can be supplied – and in­jected – fast enough. This health emergency should be treated on a war foot­ing, with vaccines being given round the clock across the country. The whole process still seems too slow.

It is still not clear to me how so many people are catching the virus, given that the vast majority wear masks and other­wise follow the rules. To escape the new, much more infectious form of the virus, it seems the best option is for people – Asians, especially, since so many have underlying conditions – to put them­selves into a voluntary form of house arrest. Don’t go out. Full stop.

It is hard to credit, but in some parts of London, the infection rate is not one in 50 but one in 20. That’s the size of an ex­tended Asian family.

Add EasternEye As Your Trusted Source
preferred source on google news

More For You

How much academic freedom should racists enjoy?

A copy of the Jason Arday book "Great and Unfortunate Things" is displayed for sale in a bookshop window on August 27, 2026 in London, England.

Getty Images

How much academic freedom should racists enjoy?

Sunder Katwala

How far should academic freedom protect racist research? The question divides academics in Europe, Britain and the United States. Ghent University in Belgium is the epicentre of the latest furore – but with an umbilical link to Cambridge, and the recent controversy and tragedy of Professor Jason Arday.

Dr Nathan Cofnas describes himself as a “race realist”: a term chosen to spin for his belief that biological racism is true. Cofnas argues that there are innate genetic differences in intelligence – and brain size too – between ethnic groups, such as whites, blacks and Asians. He claims that a dozen heretics share his beliefs. Yet the academic consensus is that race science and eugenics have been comprehensively debunked.

Keep ReadingShow less