Vaccine Passports and a False Dilemma: Health vs Liberty
As we mark a year of lockdowns and Covid-19 restrictions, new waves and strains of the virus, as well as the lagging timelines of vaccine rollouts in some parts, means that the end to our current limbo remains unclear. In all this, it has become evident that how one feels about far-reaching restrictions is very personal and likely depends on their relative views of liberty, health, collective responsibility and crucially, the degree of fear that one holds about the virus.
The pandemic thus asks serious and uncomfortable questions from a public policy point of view, as to what degree of collateral damage is acceptable, no matter what course of action is taken. At the onset, it was understood that the virus is a very contagious but discriminating one, posing a particularly high risk to the elderly and those with underlying health conditions, whilst the young and healthy could largely expect moderate, mild or even asymptomatic cases of Covid-19. This seemed a clear enough picture on the basis of which governments could take decisive and targeted action, rather than blanket restrictions which were perhaps most understandable when the virus first hit. Since then, goal-posts on returning to normal life have shifted repeatedly, amidst reports on variants, long covid and susceptibility of younger people, although it must be stated that the emergence of variants is common to viruses and is not a harrowing feature unique to Covid-19.
In the space of one year, the policy reaction to Covid-19 has affected the right to earn a living, the freedom of speech (in terms of how lay people, or even medical experts are allowed to discuss the pandemic), the freedom to protest - selectively it seems - to exercise religion and more generally, physical liberty in terms of our actions, movements and activities, both personal and professional. Whilst liberty is essential in a democracy, it is widely recognised that it isn’t absolute - there are very limited exceptions that permit restrictions to it, a chief one being public health. This of course coincides with probably the foremost human right, which is the right to life – it is a sacred right and the reason I believe so many people have been willing to sacrifice an incredible amount of their own individual liberty for their health and the health of others. In all this, a concerning and disingenuous choice has been repeatedly presented to the public, in that we must sacrifice the most basic of civil liberties for long stretches, in order to successfully combat Covid-19. This falsity was actually the greatest impetus towards starting this blog.
In Belgium, a surprising but welcome judgment by the Court of First Instance has declared that all restrictions (which the government has implemented by ministerial decree, effectively by-passing parliament for over a year) lack a legal basis and must be removed in 30 days time, subject to daily fines. Of course, the Belgian government may legitimise sensible restrictions by enacting a law through debate in parliament, and that is the very least we should expect in a 21st century democracy. Bravo to the Belgian French and Dutch-speaking Leagues for Human Rights, which brought the action in February, as well as the lawyers Audrey Lackner and Audrey Despontin, who successfully argued it in court. The message is clear that we must start to envision a way for this, and any pandemic response in the future, to exist within a firmly democratic framework. Responses must also be firmly based in data and resistant to vested interests, which has not always been the case as discussed in an earlier post.
The Hart Group Report
In March 2021, the Hart Group, a collective of British doctors, scientists, economists, psychologists and other academic experts, released a report based on an assessment of a year of Covid-19 data, COVID-19: an overview of the evidence. Their verdict?
“…Lockdowns serve no useful purpose and cause catastrophic societal and economic harms. They must never be repeated in this country.”
The report is very insightful with concise chapters on a range of key issues, and I’d strongly advise you to read it. If you don’t have time to plough through the report however, the Hart Group neatly summarises its recommendations for policy makers, set out below at the very end of this post. It is of course just one study, but it corroborates what some of the world’s most esteemed epidemiologists (see the Great Barrington Declaration) and other medical professionals have been proclaiming from the start of the pandemic to little avail - targeted protection of the vulnerable, study and use of existing treatments, and a balanced approach to public health policy in addition to vaccine development. Indeed, the report acknowledges that:
“As vaccination programmes advance, ignoring the need for other treatments would be a mistake. There remains a clear need for effective treatments to be made available:
for those cases that still occur;
for SARS-CoV-2 variants against which vaccines may be ineffective;
for those for whom vaccination is medically contraindicated or declined;
for other future winter viruses.”
It goes on to discuss a variety of existing and promising Covid-19 treatments, reminding us that our medical arsenal against Covid-19 includes not only vaccines but old and tested drugs with antiviral properties, such as ivermectin, and the benefits of supplements such as vitamin-D and zinc. Indeed, this fallacy of “vaccination only” is likely one of the main pillars that enables the false health vs liberty argument to continue to stand with any credibility.
Vaccine Mandates and Passports
Many countries are toying with the notion of making the Covid-19 vaccines mandatory and there is a simultaneous discussion on plans to introduce vaccine passports. At the EU level, the European Parliament has approved the ‘urgent procedure’ which essentially reduces scrutiny and hastens debate around the EU Green Pass Certificate, a proposed regulation aiming to primarily facilitate cross-border travel. Meanwhile, the UK government is considering introducing a vaccine passport for domestic use that could enable access for everyday activities such as going to pubs, theatres and sporting events - something that was vehemently denied just this February by the UK Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, Nadhim Zahawi, yet seems to have been in the works for some time. So far, it is stated that both schemes would also accept proof of negative tests and Covid-19 antibodies from prior infection, which make them less discriminatory than they otherwise would be. With the rate of changing policy in the past year however, there is a genuine concern that in the future, only a vaccination might be acceptable in order to obtain a “pass”.
For proponents of mass vaccination, perhaps the biggest argument against both mandatory vaccination and vaccine passports is the real life case study of the UK and its highly efficient vaccine roll-out. The voluntary scheme has completely inoculated over 4 million adults, with 31 million in total having received their first dose and scheduled for a second. These individuals constitute the large majority of those most vulnerable to the virus, and as herd immunity rises both through infection and vaccination, high risk cases and deaths continue to plummet. As a result, the UK was able to begin its first phase of its “roadmap out of lockdown” on 29 March and has signalled that it will have to learn to better manage and live with Covid-19 rather than revert to unending lockdowns.
Whats more, the Council of Europe (which counts most of the EU countries as members) adopted a resolution in January 2021, Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal and practical considerations that clearly contradicts the coercive measures in contemplation by many of its own members:
“7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake:
7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves;
7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated;”
A very real further consideration is the fact that the vaccines have passed initial trials and received emergency approval by health regulators due to the exceptional circumstances, whilst trials to assess long-term protection and safety are still ongoing (Pfizer-BioNTech aims to conclude in January 2023, whilst Moderna is slated to finish these in October 2022). This fact clearly has some bearing on the notion of informed consent in medical procedures but in spite of these circumstances, anyone who merely questions taking or delaying a vaccine (even people who have happily taken more established vaccines in the past) is strangely deemed an anti-vaxxer, an unhelpful slur which increasingly seems to counter any critical thinking or discussion around vaccines. This is not to mention the issues a vaccine passport represents in terms of data privacy, security, and the precedent it might set in terms of medical information being required to access everyday services, events or to even obtain employment.
Unfortunately, the vast implications of these proposals are not being debated as vigorously as they should be in accessible media and public forums, but rather in more procedural, formal settings that are important but unlikely to gain sufficient traction. A great example is the discussion on vaccine passports that was held by the UK Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Parliamentary Select Committee. It is long but worth watching, with some great points made by Silkie Carlo of the organisation Big Brother Watch UK, which tackles issues around technology, surveillance and human rights. For a quicker summary, the key concerns of a domestic vaccine passport are succinctly set out by Member of Parliament David Davis below:
A Permanent Solution for a Temporary Crisis
It is clear that many are intent on implementing wide-ranging policies in the midst of this crisis, and indeed the unprecedented pause to our daily grind has offered some insights into how society can be more balanced and thoughtful going forward. At the same time, for those far away from the world of tele-working and furlough schemes, the main outcome has been financial devastation, not to mention other collateral damage around mental health, domestic/child abuse and untreated cancers and other diseases.
Adam Wagner: Are Lockdowns a Threat to Human Rights?
Wherever you stand however, Covid-19 should not entail re-negotiating our relationship with hard-fought for civil liberties, privacy rights, informed consent and free will. As barrister and human rights specialist, Adam Wagner, explained some months ago in an interview with UnHerd, it is extremely difficult to roll back privacy concessions and other laws made during times of crisis. Given the current climate around discourse on how we should be handling Covid-19, Wagner is understandably tentative in the interview but touches on all the key issues we should be thinking about as some countries incredibly continue to enter fresh lockdowns despite all we now know about how to tackle the virus.
There is also the recent proposal by a number of world leaders published on 30 March, to develop an international treaty on pandemic response, which seemed to come out of the blue and grimly informs us that the question of the next pandemic is “not if, but when” - let’s get out of this one first perhaps! Some might argue that such cooperation is what we already have the World Health Organisation for, which is also a signatory to the proposal. If it does go ahead, it is something to keep an eye on in terms of impact on individuals and communities, given the wide scope such a treaty would purport to cover.
What can you do?
It’s possible to follow the science, prioritise health and maintain a semblance of the democracies we lived in before Covid-19. It is important that irreversible policies are not implemented when society is at its most frightened and vulnerable - particularly those at a supranational level that might be difficult to change.
If you agree, please share and/or contact your representatives to make sure your voice is heard. It might seem a bit old school but it is a pretty direct way to provide your input into crucial decisions that appear increasingly removed, yet impact almost every aspect of our daily lives.
The Hart Group Recommendations
Reinstate the existing pandemic planning policies from 2019, pending a detailed review of the policies adopted in 2020. Look to countries and states which did things differently. There should be a clear commitment from the Government that we will never again lockdown.
Stop mass testing healthy people. Return to the principles of respiratory disease diagnosis (the requirement of symptoms) that were well researched and accepted before 2020. Manufacturers’ guidelines state that these tests are designed to assist the diagnosis of symptomatic patients, not to ‘find’ disease in otherwise healthy people.
Stop all mask mandates. They are psychologically and potentially physically harmful whilst being clinically unproven to stop disease spread in the community and may themselves be a transmission risk.
Vaccination. Abandon the notion that vaccine certification is desirable and that children should be vaccinated. There is no logical or ethical argument for either.
Devise a public education programme to help redress the severe distortions in beliefs around disease transmission, likelihood of dying and possible treatment options. A messaging style based on a calm presentation of facts is urgently needed.
A full public enquiry into the extent to which severe/fatal COVID-19 is spread in hospitals and care homes. There is stark recent evidence on this from Public Health Scotland and if true for the rest of the UK, there needs to be better segregation of COVID-19 patients and staff within these settings.
More funding and investigation of treatments for COVID-19, instead of only focusing on vaccination as a strategy. Given the high rates of hospital transmission, encourage a drive for more early treatment-at-home using some of the protocols discussed herein.
Divert funds. The not inconsiderable money saved from ceasing testing programmes can be diverted to much needed areas, such as mental health, treatment research and an increase in hospital capacity and staffing. The vast debts accrued during 2020 will also need to be paid off, a fact that seems to be worryingly absent from economic recovery plans.