A difficult week for Arūnas Dulkis: could the minister have acted differently?

Attend Tuesday afternoon During the government’s half hour in the Seimas, A. Dulkys called his doubts about the AstraZeneca vaccine emotions and even stressed that as soon as he can, and he himself will be vaccinated with this particular vaccine.

Therefore, many were surprised that only a few hours later, the minister called a press conference and announced that, on the recommendation of the State Agency for Drug Control (IECC), stops vaccination with AstraZeneca.

He did so two days before the pending decision of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) on the vaccine.

Thursday night the Agency has ensured that the vaccine is safe, reason why the minister announced that the vaccination with her would resume from Friday morning.

The urgent decision of A. Dulkis, which had to be reversed very quickly, received much criticism, mainly because it dealt a blow to the reputation of this vaccine. He also emerged as a rapidly changing politician.

R.Urbonaitė: the situation was unforgivable

“In any case, you have to recognize that this is the biggest well,” he commented on the situation this week. 15 minutes said Rima Urbonaitė, a political scientist at Mykolas Romeris University.

However, he stressed that the question of whether the minister’s decision should be treated as an error is open and not so easy.

“You have to see a situation where you feel a lot of pressure from the public, because the media started writing about it, people started talking on social media. That is, you, as a minister, understand that people’s fears are increasing and they cannot fully react and say that you go and get vaccinated, and when there are expert statements, we will do something, “he said.

According to the political scientist, the situation was complicated, because if the EVA had said that all is not well, A. Dulkis would have had to explain why he continued to allow people to be vaccinated with this vaccine.

According to her, in that case the minister ran the risk of “being eaten” and would have had to answer very unpleasant questions.

“It was an unforgivable situation and communication was not as smooth as it could have been, despite the complexity of the situation itself. I just had to think about how to send messages to the public. It was one of the most ungrateful situations that was not handled in its entirety and it must be recognized, ”he said.

It was a period of several days when the minister found himself among the mills

“I think it was a period of several days in which the minister found himself among the mills and looked for the best way not to take risks and further increase tensions in society, on the other hand, hearing that the suspension could have negative consequences “he added. stressed the political scientist.

According to R. Urbonaitė, the Minister chose the strategy to provoke the least possible doubt to the public and send a message – “look, if we have signals, then we react”, but in the end the situation was such that the decisions changed every few hours.

“And in the end, we have to say that the suspension was really unnecessary,” said the political scientist.

According to R. Urbonaitė, the Minister could have previously publicly and specifically declared that if the situation is the same, he will make the same decisions, if different, different.

“It just came to our knowledge then. This mistake was made, yes, we must admit it, but when the coin is turned we must also recognize that the situation was unforgivable when it was under pressure from all sides, and knowing the various tensions In society, these mistakes can be very costly. “He said. Interlocutor.

He agreed that the vaccine had suffered a reputational blow.

And wasn’t the minister himself recommending himself as difficult to predict?

“Now all politicians in the coronavirus situation can be described as difficult to predict simply because we no longer know what will happen in a week or two,” said R. Urbonaitė.

He added that predictability in such a situation is not to be expected now, but the jump does not add “points of political karma,” because the public at least wants the minister in this area to be distracted.

“Although it depends on many factors: experts, the latest scientific discoveries, research. That dependence does not allow the Minister to be very predictable, but he must admit that this will not be an excuse.

No one will look at such things, because full responsibility, one way or another, will have to be borne not by, as I say, some mystical experts whom no one ultimately knows or sees, but by a minister whom everyone knows. and go. This must also be understood. Therefore, those distractions will cost the minister, ”said University political scientist Mykolas Romeris.

According to her, A. Dulkys should evaluate this situation and think about how not to repeat it in the future.

The prime minister did not want to climb the burning bonfire

According to R. Urbonaitė, doubts arise as to whether A. Dulkys coordinated his decision with Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonyte.

“Everything took place over a period of several hours and it was natural that one or the other party was not fully informed. I cannot confirm it, because I do not have precise information, but at the same time I had that impression,” he emphasized, adding that I. Šimonytė then he emphasized that there couldn’t be a good solution here, someone still would. Has suffered.

“But we can’t really say that everything has started,” said the interlocutor, noting that the prime minister’s reluctance to “climb the stake” was seen later.

However, according to her, the question was whether the Prime Minister should have done it, because A. Dulkis had to take full responsibility.

M. Baltrukevičius: there was no good solution

Matas Baltrukevičius, Associate Analyst, Vilnius Institute for Political Analysis 15 minutes He said that he also had the impression that the government had not participated in the decision to suspend vaccination and that the question of how to deal with this situation did not appear to have been further discussed among ministers.

“As far as it could be understood, it was quite a personal decision for A. Dulkis,” he emphasized.

According to M. Baltrukevičius, both A. Dulkys and the Prime Minister conveyed the same message that the EVA will likely make a decision in favor of AstraZeneca; this is what happened later.

The analyst estimates that the minister simply could not choose a good solution in the situation with the AstraZeneca vaccine because he did not have it.

According to the analyst, if A. Dulkys had done nothing in the presence of such a recommendation from IWT, he would have been criticized for doing nothing.

“The decision came out short-lived, almost a day, so it is natural that everyone has the impression that the government does not know, is distracted and it seemed even more strange that A. Dulkys said in the morning that he himself would vaccinate AstraZeneca. and stop for the night, “he said.

Confidence in A. Dulkis and the government’s ability to handle this situation suffered in this situation.

M. Baltrukevičius stated that in this situation, trust in A. Dulkis and the Government’s ability to handle this situation had suffered.

According to him, now it seems that only some kind of crisis is forcing us to reconsider the decisions made, mentioning that A. Dulkys decided on Thursday to redistribute vaccines according to the vaccination rate.

“And allowing vaccines to be chosen is a pretty good solution for people to be able to participate more and increase confidence,” he said.

In his opinion, the main problems in handling this government pandemic are poor communication and inconsistency.

“Almost every Monday we find out what the expert advice will offer to the Government. The role of the expert board appears to simply be to raise unreasonable expectations from the public, as Wednesday’s decision-making reveals that some of what was discussed on Monday will not be included.

I understand the will of this Government to demonstrate absolute openness in contrast to the past. “Revealing what was planned, what is being discussed, but a lot of noise, that people receive messages on Monday, but in the end they do not understand it and that increases frustration and mistrust, it is difficult for people to orient themselves,” said the interlocutor .