 |
| The Badge Of Good Citizenship: Why are foreign governments insisting that people wishing to enter their country must present proof of vaccination and non-infection? Because they are committed to keeping their people safe. Why will our own government soon be requiring us to present a vaccination passport before entering a pub or a restaurant? The answer is exactly the same. Because it, too, is committed to keeping its citizens safe. |
THE BEATING OF THE DELTA VARIANT of Covid-19 and the issuing of “vaccination passports” are about to become mutually reinforcing. Leastways, that is how the proposition will be framed by the Government and its expert advisers. How will it go down with the voters? Like a treat! New Zealanders want out of their Covid nightmare. Accordingly, there will be precious little tolerance for any person or group perceived to be obstructing the exit.
The practical necessity for a vaccination passport has already been recognised by the airlines. As the world gradually opens up to international travel, purchase of air-tickets will be conditional on presenting proof of both vaccination and non-infection. Nobody expects to get on a plane without a government-issued Passport. Nobody should expect to get on a plane without a vaccination passport.
After all, tourists travelling to parts of the world where dangerous diseases are endemic are required to produce evidence of vaccination. Without such evidence they are simply not permitted to fly. International travellers have accepted these rules without demur for decades. That a vocal minority are now making a fuss over an identical requirement to present proof of vaccination against Covid-19 – condemning it as an unconscionable infringement of their personal liberty – demonstrates just how weirdly Covid is making some people think and act.
Others, even more out of sync with logic and ethics, are shrugging-off the international “No Jab-No Fly” rules, but objecting fiercely to the idea of having to present a vaccination passport domestically. The idea that citizens unable to present a valid vaccination passport might be refused entry to shops and offices, factories and sports stadia, strikes these Covid dissidents as entirely unacceptable.
That the introduction of domestic vaccination passports poses challenges is indisputable, but the suggestion that the rationales for mandating the vaccination of international travellers, and ordinary citizens, differ in any substantial way, is risible. Why are foreign governments insisting that people wishing to enter their country must present proof of vaccination and non-infection? Because they are committed to keeping their people safe. Why will your own government soon be requiring you to present a vaccination passport before entering a pub or a restaurant? The answer is exactly the same. Because it, too, is committed to keeping its citizens safe.
What these Covid dissidents should be required to explain is why they refuse to be vaccinated. Epidemiologists are united in their advice that the larger the percentage of vaccinated persons becomes, the greater the probability that, even in the unlikely event of becoming infected, a vaccinated person’s chances of becoming seriously ill are extremely low. What credible explanation for not being vaccinated could they possible offer?
They certainly cannot advance the idea that the vaccine (especially the Pfizer vaccine used in New Zealand) is unsafe. Tens-of-millions of doses have been administered worldwide without incident. The number of adverse reactions is so tiny that the English language struggles to produce the right word. Infinitesimal is a good start, but a better way to put it is to say that a person is much more likely to be struck several times by lightening than they are to experience serious negative side-effects from a Covid-19 jab.
At this point Covid dissidents could start mumbling about microchips, 5G and Bill Gates’ diabolical plans for world domination – thereby ruling themselves out of contention as persons whose objections warrant serious consideration. Or, they could simply assert their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (1990). Section 11 of the Act clearly states that: “Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.”
This is an important human right and the New Zealand Government is bound to uphold it. The problem for the Covid dissidents, however, is that no one – least of all the Government – is proposing to seize them by force, strap them to a chair, and inject them with a double-dose of the Pfizer vaccine. By issuing vaccination passports the state is merely declaring that if an individual asserts his or her right to refuse to accept this particular form of medical treatment, then the community will be empowered to assert its right to protect itself from those who refuse to take the fight against Covid-19 seriously.
On a personal note, and as someone heavily invested ideologically in the NZ Bill of Rights Act – most particularly its guarantees of freedom of thought and freedom of expression – my stance on vaccination passports stands open to challenge. By way of rejoinder, I would argue that no human right is absolute. As the familiar adage goes: “Freedom of Speech does not give one the right to cry ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre.” Those who refuse to be vaccinated in the midst of a global pandemic may, in my opinion, reasonably be accused of behaving with the same reckless disregard for the welfare (and rights) of others as the reprobate who shouts ‘Fire!’
It is possible, of course, that Covid dissidents may also have heavy ideological investments. Given that New Zealand is in the grip of an epidemiological crisis which can be ameliorated to a considerable degree by as many people as possible being vaccinated, it is difficult to conceive of any ethical ideological argument that could be mounted against vaccination. The only ideological system which fits the bill is Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism” – the extreme libertarian doctrine which repudiates entirely the notion that human-beings are obligated to help one another. Perhaps the most that can be said for these Objectivist objections is that although Rand’s followers are free to think such thoughts, the rest of humanity is equally free to protect themselves from their practical expression.
The only serious objection offered against the introduction of vaccination passports is that it could lead to a dangerous worsening in race relations. While Māori vaccination rates (particularly those of young Māori) lag behind the rest of the New Zealand population, the situation could easily arise of a big majority of the population happily flashing their vaccination passports at their places of work (“No Jab, No Job!”) and recreation – not to mention pharmacies and supermarkets – while young, unvaccinated Māori, lacking passports, are denied entry. That would be a recipe for real injustice – and big trouble.
A concerted effort must, therefore, be made by the Government, the Ministry of Health and Iwi service organisations of all kinds, to lift the rate of Māori vaccination as swiftly as possible. Indeed, one could reasonably argue that until this huge potential difficulty has been resolved – along with the problem of finding an effective means of addressing the needs of those with medical conditions that preclude vaccination – the roll out of vaccination passports should be delayed.
But, any delay cannot afford to be a long one. New Zealanders won’t stand for it. The Delta variant of Covid-19 has thrown the country’s hitherto highly effective “Elimination Strategy” into doubt. Aucklanders are wearying rapidly of Level 4 Lockdown. More and more, Kiwis are looking to vaccination for salvation. Realistically, that means 90-95 percent of the adult population (at the very least) getting the double (or triple) jab.
Moreover, once they’ve got it, and the vaccination passport to prove it, they will not want to see free-riders making a mockery of their public-spirited contribution to the general welfare. Aotearoa-New Zealand has never been a libertarian nation. Politically, Kiwis are much more likely to echo the words of the Roman statesman, Cicero, who famously declared:
Salus populi suprema lex esto
The safety of the people shall be the highest law.
This essay was originally posted on the Interest.co.nz website on Monday, 13 September 2021.
18 comments:
My god, where to start with this insanity.
First off; farewell "team of five million" and "kindness"; hello "wreckers and saboteurs"
You're in good company though as Canadian PM Justin Trudeau is taking the same path in setting up the unvaccinated as the new target for raw hatred, " “they are putting at risk their own kids, and they are putting at risk our kids as well.”. BTW that's quite the contrast to his comment about the Boston Bombers a few years ago when he said that the two men who did it clearly felt “completely excluded” from their society and that the last thing Canada should do was make people like them feel even more excluded by pointing fingers at members of identifiable groups and cultivating a culture of fear and mistrust.
Heh! "The Other" is infinitely flexible.
Unfortunately for your beloved Jacinda this was always on the cards since we've known for two months, as we watched Delta approach, that it was both more infectious but (key excluded fact here) less lethal. So it was going to result in more cases that might not be able to be stopped with a lockdown, but also fewer deaths.
And I wouldn't put your hope in the 80% vax level either, since the original vaccines are beautifully crafted genetic missiles that are great with Alpha and less great with Delta (and whatever comes next). That's why one of the most vaxxed nations in the world, Israel, has seen an explosion of Delta cases (but not deaths).
This should not be surprising since coronaviruses mutate a lot, like Rhinoviruses, and both virus families form the basis of the Common Cold, which is why we've never had a vaccine against that. Even the flu vax are best guesses as to which strain will appear each season.
Sooner or later Jacinda is just going to have to bite the bullet, lift the lockdowns, watch cases rise and hope to god the vax levels among the most vulnerable work against severe illness and deaths. Almost every other nation has abandoned the Zero-Covid strategy.
WRT vaccine passports, how's that going to work with those who have caught the virus and developed natural immunity against it? They're not in any danger of re-infection causing severe illness or death and we now know from overseas that vaccinated people can spread the virus as much as unvaccinated people. In fact natural immunity has long been held to be superior to vaccine-induced immunity, especially the targeted mRNA type, because it's broader-based, as we're seeing with even double-vaxxed folk catching Delta.
And of course there's the question of booster shots, since we now know that the efficacy of the vaccines (depending on which one) declines about 50% over six months. Will the "passport" be like a driver's license?
All the above is one reason why proposals for vaccine passports, even in Ye Olde Airstrip One, are being abandoned. Other nations will follow as the hysteria of the now recedes, although I'm sure that Mu, Gamma, Zeta and Epsilon will be used for Fear Factor x.0. Epsilon's my fave as it sounds like a cool SF movie.
If you're going to compare it to the vaccine requirements for visiting various nations you have to come back to the fact that in those cases we're talking about diseases that are much more deadly than Covid-19.
Epidemiologists are united in their advice that the larger the percentage of vaccinated persons becomes, the greater the probability that, even in the unlikely event of becoming infected, a vaccinated person’s chances of becoming seriously ill are extremely low. What credible explanation for not being vaccinated could they possible offer?
What epidemiologist did you get this from? This is gobbledygook. If you're vaccinated it doesn't matter if you encounter an unvaccinated person. You're protected not from catching the virus but from suffering severe illness and death when you do. So what's your problem? This is actually not a case of my rights reducing yours as it would be were we dealing with Ebola or Typhoid Mary.
You could only make the statement above if you're still aiming for zero-Covid, which, as many public health authority figures are explaining overseas, is a nonsense because this is not like smallpox or even the measles - which I wish somebody would tell the PM when she makes that comparison. It's scientifically embarrassing to hear it.
If being vaccinated means you are much less likely to require hospitalization from catching COVID, then a strong ethical argument can be made for getting vaccinated to protect our health system which is already under huge stress.
I wonder sometimes why anyone would put forward a point of view, as in this essay,that is pure imagining on minimal and unfounded data. Surely the whole point of vaccination is to protect and therefore what does it matter if others are or are not vaccinated? This essay suggests very strongly that the vaccination has actually no real capacity to protect and because of this those unvaccinated people present an enhanced threat.How can this be? It is now a recognised fact that the vaccinated are as real and effective a threat of infecting both vaccinated and unvaccinated as those not vaccinated. How does all this provide grounds for division based on a vaccination that doesn't really work? It seems that the essay is based on a few facts only with the exclusion of the many and that is a shame.
" This is actually not a case of my rights reducing yours as it would be were we dealing with Ebola or Typhoid Mary."
Vaccinated people can still pose on the disease. No vaccination is 100% effective. And I doubt somehow if it protects your hundred percent from serious consequences. And of course there are people who cannot get vaccinated for one reason or another who are vulnerable to the unvaccinated – particularly the immunocompromised. And the more people who are unvaccinated the more chance there is of a more resistant variant showing up, so people who don't get vaccinated are putting us all in danger.
Personally I think – by all means don't get vaccinated, but your lack of vaccination should have consequences. I think that private businesses should be allowed to refuse entry to people who aren't vaccinated, And I think the government should impose the same restrictions on people trying to personally access government services. Actually the latter wouldn't be too much of a problem given that most services are available online these days.
There's no need to get all authoritarian about this, what happened to "my body my choice". The number of people strongly opposed to getting vaccinated is small enough that we can still get to around the 80% mark regardless and declare the end to restrictions as countries like Denmark have done.
The problem is the vaccination delivery. How did we go from "front of the queue" to 120th of all countries? They were crowing about achieving 80,000 shots in a day, there are 11,000 qualified vaccinators with about 6,500 on duty each day. Surely they can do better than 12 shots a day each. What's up with that?
Some good points as usual Tom. When this thing first started I recall listening to a proper epidemiologist explaining that the virus would evolve to become more contagious but thankfully less lethal, he speculated that even the earliest variants of the common cold would have been lethal. Makes sense, a dead host is an evolutionary dead end for the virus as well.
Anyway, I'm belatedly off to get my first shot this week but no animosity to those that choose not to.
So, Mr Trotter, you want to know why someone would refuse the covid shot.
1. It does not prevent the disease it is supposed to prevent.
2. It does not prevent transmission of the disease.
3. It is not effective against any variants, which has been demonstrated in highly vaccinated countries such as Israel and Iceland.
4. It has not been put through the clinical trials which are normally required for vaccines prior to their distribution.
5. The manufacturers are exempt from any liability for deaths or injuries caused by their products.
6. These products have caused more deaths and injuries within one year than all other vaccines for the past 25 years. They are manifestly unsafe.
7. My body, my choice.
I have always asked the question - If Covid19 is not seen as enough of a public health issue for restrictions to protect the community? Then what level of crisis would be? Typhoid? Cholera? Radioactivity? At what point do the Tom Hunter's of this world recognize personal and communal responsibility for the health of others?
It is difficult to understand people at one point lambasting China for supposedly allowing the pandemic to spread, while simultaneously refusing measures to prevent the spread in their own communities.
There has been nothing in Tom's postings to date to suggest he has any specialist knowledge of viruses and there spread. The distrust of science by the far right replaces expertise with the arm-chair self imagined know it all. Accordingly, typhoid or Ebola are seen as potential points of emergency (I am not an expert, but I understand Covid19 Delta is more contagious than typhoid).
It is easy cherry-pick the articles that support a position. Like Chris, I understand that double immunization does reduce the chance of both catching and spreading Covid19. Cases that do catch Covid19 despite immunization are less likely to be severely ill.
However, there has remained the question as to whether Long Covid could still be a concern. The answer is, according to the Lancet Infectious Diseases reporting a study by Kings College London, the chances of Long Covid are halved.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-09-vaccination-halves-covid.html
Not to be hypocritical, it is one study. I am sure there is a need for further study, but this gives some suggesting to what the post-immunization terrain may be.
I have shared previously, I was in Samoa during the last measles epidemic. Children and family members dying because immunization advice had been ignored is not some theory, I have seen a community suffering. I saw the politicalized misinformation. I saw the selfish. I saw the ignorant. Most of all, I saw the suffering caused.
Public health is everyone's responsibility. Those that opt out of responsibility, should be restricted in public.
I am happy to have a vaccine passport. Those that are not, I suggest a 'do not resuscitate card'.
I remember when you HAD to have a sort of vaccine passport when you travelled overseas. Plus ca change plus c’est la meme chose.
My first principal is freedom of speech.
My second is freedom of choice.
Of course with both come the responsibilities aligned with said choice and their outcomes.
When using the argument its to help ""protect"" the health system.
And therefor a ""passport"" is required.
Surely the morbidly obese should also find sanction from the Government for loading the Health system in the same way that unvaxed are??.
Over at No Minister I see that my co-blogger, Nick, has put up something from Gareth Morgan's Facebook page, of which I shall put up only this key piece:
Really it’s no different to traffic accidents, death by the flu, air travel. Make the call on how many isn’t too many and you get the policy settings needed. Of course many people will say no deaths from covid is acceptable. But that’s as naïve as saying we should close the roads so nobody has a road accident.
What is missing right now is that the NZ leadership hasn’t communicated how many deaths it will tolerate from covid. Clearly it’s more than zero otherwise they wouldn’t have opened the bubble with Australia, or operated an MIQ that leaks. Once they settle on a target death rate then we’ll all know what our route to living with the virus will be.
1. It does not prevent the disease it is supposed to prevent.
2. It does not prevent transmission of the disease.
3. It is not effective against any variants, which has been demonstrated in highly vaccinated countries such as Israel and Iceland.
4. It has not been put through the clinical trials which are normally required for vaccines prior to their distribution.
5. The manufacturers are exempt from any liability for deaths or injuries caused by their products.
6. These products have caused more deaths and injuries within one year than all other vaccines for the past 25 years. They are manifestly unsafe.
7. My body, my choice.
1,2,3. No vaccine does this. Which is why the flu vaccine changes every year.
4. Yes they have. "The clinical trials and safety reviews actually took about the same amount of time as other vaccines."
5.Yes they are, and there is a good reason for it. And it's relatively common in emergency situations.
6.Nonsense. The number of deaths is minuscule, and given that in the US at least it is required that anyone who dies after receiving the vaccine is recorded – but not necessarily what they died of. In a similar fashion people are claiming that old people have died after getting the vaccine – forgetting that old people die – a lot.
7.Your right to swing your fist, stops at the end of my nose. So I hope you're not coming into contact with other people. If you caused the death of someone close to me by your irresponsible attitude I would sue your socks off. And hope to get you prosecuted for manslaughter.
Chris, I am really disappointed you allow people to publish outright anti-vax lies on this site. How many people will read this and believe it, even though it has been refuted, and it simply isn't true. Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, neither you nor the OP seem to be using that responsibility here.
To" Guerilla Surgeon.
You are quite correct, GS. I have erred in allowing blatant anti-vaxxer sentiments to be expressed on this blog.
This is to let you - and all my readers - know that, henceforth, anti-vaxxer commentary will be deleted.
A pandemic is no time for giving the spreaders of misinformation - and disinformation - the benefit of the doubt.
Excellent and about time Chris.
Chris, anti vaxxer commentary to be deleted, so I take it doubt is inadmissible?
I have severe doubts about our Covid strategy, about the efficiency and safety of the vaccines. And without doubt all you have between yourself and possible harm is blind faith. That said I am a pro vaccine person. But I do not support compulsion. If only you read this you know where I stand. Go ahead and delete.
blatant anti-vaxxer sentiments
Well, considering how many vaccinations I've had in life, probably fifty, including booster shots, I doubt I could be put in that camp. Neither could the guy who said this on a Tweet:
Thinking that everyone must be vaccinated is as scientifically flawed as thinking that nobody should. COVID vaccines are important for older high-risk people, and their care-takers. Those with prior natural infection do not need it. Nor children.
The vaccination experts at Twitter (I thought they were IT experts) immediately jumped on that and not only wiped the tweet but banned the guy who made it. And who was he...?
Dr. Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a biostatistician and epidemiologist at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He helped develop the CDC’s current system for monitoring potential vaccine risks.
Or as one of his comrades described him:
Kulldorff is a “world-class” vaccine safety “superstar,” said Jeffrey Brown, a Harvard Medical School colleague specializing in drug and vaccine safety research. “His qualifications are spectacular,” Brown said of Kulldorff. “He’s an international expert in vaccine safety. No one on earth would question whether he’s qualified. … He’s a pioneer.”
This is how crazy we're getting.
Hokay, critical opinions about the vax are deleted? Thus blog just became much less useful to the citizenry.
Guerilla Surgeon: Maybe because the flu vaccine changes every year and has low efficacy has something to do with why it has never occurred to our societies to mandate its administration to every living person.
Not providing a platform is the right of the blogs host. We are in the greatest global health crisis in a century. As above, I saw social media originating in Australia and the US undermining public health urgency and preying upon the I'll informed.
In my view there is blood on the hands of those that exploited social media as children died. Denying a platform as Chris has done is like refusing a sociopath a weapon.
Post a Comment