This is a clever idea. But it will not suffice, because the bigger obstacle is the lack of trust between the Chinese public and the medical establishment.

To be sure, all countries have faced difficulties in convincing concerned populations that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. In the US, 15 per cent of people remained unvaccinated against Covid-19 as at last December, and 42 per cent of this group said they did not trust the vaccines.

The Chinese and American vaccine-resistant populations thus share a fear of side effects. But the Chinese and US medical establishments have responded to these concerns in very different ways.

In the US, the medical establishment has tried to build trust by conducting independent and transparent medical trials, the results of which are reported in uncensored publications and subject to open deliberation at all levels – by experts, journalists, politicians and the public. This approach builds on two well-known maxims of public health: trust in the medical establishment will increase the uptake of treatments; and such trust is built through transparency and open deliberation.

The current failure contrasts sharply with China’s own past success with deliberative decision-making on matters of health policy. After the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome in 2003, China permitted a constructive debate about problems in its health system. As many noted, over 80 per cent of rural residents, and 40 per cent of urban dwellers, had no health insurance of any kind at the time.

In response, the government announced in 2009 that it would invest 850 billion yuan to provide health coverage for all. The next two years featured intensive discussions among and between national and regional policymakers, health experts, community leaders, journalists and the public. The deliberations led to many amendments in the proposed policy. Though the final product was not perfect, it led to widespread adoption of health insurance. By 2021, 95 per cent of Chinese had some form of coverage.

Of course, deliberation about Covid-19 vaccines will need to be faster and will not be cost-free. The Chinese vaccines would draw criticism, and some people would still be turned off by common side effects (such as fevers) or rarer risks (such as allergic reactions). Others would criticise the government’s handling of the pandemic, if given the chance.

But these short-run costs are worth the long-term benefits of building trust in public-health authorities and increasing vaccination rates over time. As other countries have found, disclosing negative information about vaccines might increase public reluctance in the short run, but it helps to sustain trust and stymie conspiracy theories.

Shanghai lockdown woes highlight need for greater media freedom in China

Battling Covid-19 effectively requires accounting for the long run, given the high likelihood of future waves and the need for additional rounds of vaccination. For China, even more than for other countries, building trust is critical, because it is a necessary step in moving away from the zero-Covid strategy.

That shift will naturally lead to more infections and deaths. But open deliberations about the vaccines can increase their uptake, help to moderate the spread of the disease and counter the negative impact on public trust.

China urgently needs to embrace transparency on this issue. The longer it waits, the more difficult it will be to abandon its economically destructive zero-Covid policy.