Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is challenging. As a scientist, I have a real passion for that issue. I think that, generally in our population, we do not have a great understanding of science. Science is not black and white and does not tell you what is right and wrong, but it helps you to answer questions. It is a way of seeking a way forward. All that it does is inform your decision making rather than tell you in a black and white way what you have to do. There is still always judgment in science. The phrase “follow the evidence base” is slightly less catchy, but that might have helped people to understand that it might be a changing feast.

There are not many positives to come from the pandemic, which has been the most testing time for the whole population, but I think that we have seen a far greater understanding of science in our population, which will stand us in good stead. We have seen a great deal of health literacy and risk assessment going on. People have gone to the Public Health Scotland website and found the data for their local area, which has informed their risk assessment of what they might need to do. I think that is a healthy and positive thing to come out of the pandemic.

As somebody who used to yell regularly at the television, I have seen a vast improvement in our scientific reporting and medical reporting. When I worked as a pharmacist, I used to regularly be frustrated by the way that significant clinical trials were communicated to the general population. We have seen that happen in a far better way. Journalists who are reporting on science and medicine have stepped up and done a pretty good job of communicating fairly complicated things to a population who generally are not scientists.

I do not know whether either of my colleagues wants to add anything.

I am sure that Jason Leitch will want to say a little bit more about that but, with any vaccine programme or vaccination, there will be a balance of risks and benefits. We have seen that very clearly played out as the JCVI gathered together the evidence for vaccinating children, where it felt that the benefit-risk balance was a little bit different. You need to take into account which population you are aiming your vaccine at. For some people, it will be a complete no-brainer because they will be particularly at risk from the consequences of that virus. For others, it will be a question of considering their own vulnerability and how much it helps the population for them to be vaccinated. Those are not clear-cut decisions.

Vaccines always carry risks. It is always a very small number of people who suffer adverse side effects. It is often the case that you cannot predict who will suffer those adverse side effects. If you could predict it, you would be able to take measures to avoid it. With a vaccine programme of the scale of this vaccine programme, where you are targeting pretty much the entire population, there are likely to be some people who suffer adverse events, but the benefits on a population level still outweigh the risks. That is a really important thing to communicate.

One of the challenges is that there were some side effects that might have been more predictable and there were people who thought that they perhaps should not have the vaccine. There was a question around people with allergies or allergic responses to vaccines. If you have had anaphylaxis in the past, it is very frightening to accept a vaccine where there is potentially a risk of allergy. Communicating messages that would reassure those individuals in relation to an individual assessment of whether someone is at particular risk from this vaccine is difficult. We could not communicate that at population level; that had to involve an individual discussion between clinician and patient at the time of vaccination.

You have just reminded me that I should mention www.travellingtabby.com, which was absolutely outstanding citizen science, was it not?

They have been on our television screens for so long helping to guide us through this challenging time. I think that there is definitely more interest in science among the population, and among the young population.

I would be delighted if an outcome of the pandemic were to be that more people were to go into science disciplines. There are lots of them, so that would be a great thing. There are very few of us in politics with science degrees, for example, which I know has been mentioned many times since I came into politics. There are just a handful of the 129 MPs who have science backgrounds. It would be useful if more people had such understanding, rigour, and the ability to analyse information and put it together to be able to cope with grey areas. To be able to make good decisions despite uncertainty and gaps is absolutely a useful skill in government, so let us have more science, please.

That is one of the challenges that we have faced throughout the pandemic. We rely on expert advice. For vaccines, we rely on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to give us advice on which groups should be targeted with vaccination. It can work only at a certain pace. People want to know now whether they will get a vaccine in the autumn. At the moment, the JCVI has not come out completely clearly. It has said that some of the population will be eligible, but it has not made a final statement on who will be eligible. The Scottish Government has largely followed JCVI advice, because it is absolutely the expert on vaccination and it will help us to make the most of the vaccination programme, which has been so transformative in this pandemic.

FACTS is: F, wear a face covering; A, avoid crowded spaces; C, clean your hands; T, observe two-metre distancing; and S, self-isolate. [Applause.]

I am lousy at acronyms, I have to admit. I find acronyms very hard. I can remember that acronym and I can remember the general meaning, but remembering what the individual instructions are is tricky. I agree that finding that sweet spot of simple messaging is difficult. I know that in England they went for—

Certainly. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Scottish Government’s communication of public health information.

Communication was at the heart of our response to the pandemic. Our overarching communication aims were to reach the entire population of Scotland as many times as possible in the most cost-effective way, with accessible information that was easily understood and which motivated people to stay safe and to protect others. The challenges were significant, in that the situation was changing constantly. Information was often complex and sensitive, and there were risks around overload and confusion, particularly when the measures and messaging were different from those of the United Kingdom Government.

Behavioural science was, and continues to be, central to our approach to all pandemic-related communications activity. Alongside the significant behavioural asks that were identified by medical and other experts, our understanding of the factors that inform behaviour change among the population has been essential in delivering effective public health messaging.

As well as drawing on behavioural science best practice, we undertook our own research to strengthen our insights and understanding. Specifically, we sought to understand people’s attitudes, awareness and motivations related to Covid.

We also looked to identify barriers that people had to adopting important public health behaviours. We used that evidence to develop our messaging across a range of media channels to ensure that different audiences and population groups were reached.

I turn briefly to the work that we did to drive vaccine uptake as one specific example of how we targeted our messages to help us to achieve the public health goals. We have ensured that all our Covid-19 vaccination communications are suitable for everyone in Scotland, with tailored messages, where necessary, to reach specific groups. We have translated vaccine information into multiple languages and provided it in a range of formats on NHS Inform.

We also developed a culturally sensitive vaccine explainer video, which was informed by insights from organisations that represent various communities across government.

Equally important is that we worked, and continue to work, with health boards and other partners to encourage uptake, particularly where it is low in specific communities. Our approach is informed by the evidence, including Public Health Scotland’s equality data, which gives a breakdown of vaccination uptake by ethnicity and by deprivation.

We have sought to build trust, and to remove barriers for people who might not otherwise take up the vaccination, through a range of outreach activity and partnerships with local authorities, and community and third sector organisations. The research that was published yesterday shows that people welcomed having a local and more flexible service when they were considering vaccination.

Just as our approach to public communications was influenced by behavioural science and insight, our communications were informed by the science of the pandemic and how to fight Covid. That has meant that rapid access to the evidence and expertise across a range of disciplines and organisations has been vital throughout.

Just as the science behind our understanding of the pandemic constantly evolved, so too did our approach to how we commissioned and considered scientific advice. For example, we established the Covid-19 advisory group and sub-groups, which have brought together experts from a range of disciplines and organisations, including universities, Public Health Scotland, National Services Scotland and Scottish Government advisers.

The chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser for Scotland also led a new network of our science and evidence-related chief advisers to share information across their specialisms. That has delivered a holistic approach to commissioning and co-ordination of scientific evidence.

I look forward to this morning’s discussion, and am happy to answer questions from the committee.

Jason Leitch will probably give you a fuller answer on that, but the sensitivity around the word “vulnerable” indicates just how difficult it is to choose the right words to communicate risk to a population with different levels of susceptibility.

Not all sites on social media are worth looking at, but travellingtabby.com was absolutely brilliant at analysing the data and presenting it in a way that was understandable to the population. It was remarkable work by a university student, who has rightly been lauded for it. More of that would be great.