The Case for Vaccine Passports is Feeble and Fading

The Case for Vaccine Passports is Feeble and Fading. By Karl Mahlberg.

Last week I wrote 5 Reasons Why Vaccine Passports are an Ethical Disaster. It was met with plenty of praise and agreement — but more than a few rebuttals as well. … Below I respond …

1. “But we already need vaccine passports to travel to some countries.”

It is true that to visit some countries, you are required to present proof that you are immunised against diseases like smallpox, yellow fever or cholera.

But visiting the far-flung jungles of Africa or South America is worlds apart from visiting your local cafe, museum, church, workplace, or a nearby Australian state or territory. This is what the current vaccine passport debate is about. …

2. “But flu vaccination is already mandated for entry into nursing homes.”

In some parts of Australia, people wanting to visit a loved one in a nursing home must show proof of an influenza vaccination before entry. Given that the primary purpose of a nursing home is to house and care for the elderly — who are on average much more vulnerable to influenza — there are obvious merits to such policies.

The same is true for ‘no jab, no play’ rules in childcare facilities. You don’t have to agree with these policies (I don’t) to see that the logic is to protect young children who are particularly susceptible to childhood diseases.

But to use this as the rationale for Covid-19 vaccine passports at all venues in the nation — which provide goods and services to people of all ages — is an extraordinary stretch … While Covid-19 is a deadly disease for some, it is nowhere near as fatal to the general population as influenza is to the elderly. …

3. “But privately-owned venues are already allowed to ban smokers.” …

The minute a smoker removes the cigarette from their mouth, they can enter the venue.  …

A pub or restaurant cannot, for example, decide to exclude people who have HIV/AIDS. In NSW, ‘infectious diseases discrimination’ is against the law: this includes treating someone unequally on the assumption that they have or may acquire an infectious disease. …

4. “But the government already mandates other safety measures.”

It has also been argued that since the government has the right to make us wear seatbelts or stop at traffic lights, they should also have the right to make us get a vaccine.

Once again, these situations are chalk and cheese. One of them involves obeying momentary directives; the other requires handing over one’s medical autonomy to the State without any assurance that the State will hand it back again. …

6. “But vaccine passports will bring us greater freedom.”

The idea that vaccine passports will somehow grant us ‘greater freedom’ is a semantic trick …

It is a semantic trick because what is meant is not greater freedom but greater safety. Driven by exaggerated panic, people hope that vaccine mandates will deliver them freedom from fear or freedom from death. But to be clear, these are functional synonyms for safety. …

7. “But vaccine passports are just temporary.”

I have been asked why I assume vaccine passports will be permanent. But I believe this is the wrong question. A better question would be, why do you assume vaccine passports will be temporary? …

9. “But the vaccines are safe.”

The vaccines have proven safe for the majority of those who have taken them. … However, … the vaccines have not been safe for everyone.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) reports that nine Australians have lost their lives as a direct result of taking a Covid-19 vaccine—one from Pfizer and eight from AstraZeneca. (The TGA has received 490 further reports of death following a Covid-19 vaccination, but in these cases, a causal link to the vaccine was not explicitly confirmed).

Some 55,000 adverse events have been reported to the TGA in connection with the Covid-19 vaccines. Most of these were minor and short-lived, but some have been serious. Channel 7 reporter Denham Hitchcock, for example, has suffered debilitating complications since taking the jab.

In the United States, almost 14,000 deaths have been reported following a Covid-19 vaccination through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). This number represents 60 per cent of all vaccine deaths that have ever been reported to VAERS since it was set up in 1990.

Not all VAERS data is bias-free or accurate since reports are made to it voluntarily. But it is also true that reporting a death is a time-consuming task that comes with no personal benefit — and possible scrutiny — for any medical professional who submits it. So 14,000 is likely to be a floor rather than a ceiling for Covid-19 vaccine deaths in America.

In addition to this, some 650,000 adverse events have been reported to VAERS following a Covid-19 vaccination. Most of these are minor, but thousands of miscarriages, heart attacks, and permanent disabilities are included in this number.

Similar data can be seen in the UK’s Yellow Card reporting system and Europe’s EudraVigilance database. …

10. “But the risk of Covid-19 outweighs the risk of the vaccine.”

It is true that, on balance, the risk posed by the virus outweighs the risk of taking the vaccine. But this fact comes as cold comfort for the person who dies from a vaccine and for the loved ones they leave behind. …

Human beings are not robots: we approach risk in different ways. Some people are so risk-averse that they never travel by aeroplane; others live for the thrill of BASE jumping or motocross despite the significant dangers of these sports. We all agree that these are decisions people should be free to make themselves, not have imposed on them by others.

Additionally, if given a choice between being killed ‘artificially’ at the hands of another person or by an event of nature that may happen sometime in the vague, unknowable future, most people would choose the latter. This explains why many young, healthy people with robust immune systems prefer to take their chance with the virus rather than the vaccine. This choice should be left to them, not forced on them.

Covid-19 is a highly discriminatory disease that poses particular dangers to the elderly, the immunocompromised, and those with co-morbidities. For such people, taking the vaccine is a no-brainer. But this is an argument for vaccines, not compulsory vaccines. …

11. “But the unvaccinated could end up killing people.”

The Covid-19 vaccines have been shown to reduce hospitalisations and deaths significantly. But nations with high vaccination rates still see high rates of transmission and infection.

In other words, the benefit of the vaccine is almost entirely personal. It protects the person who takes it and may help slow transmission of the virus, but it cannot prevent them from passing it on to others. …

So people should be encouraged to take the vaccine for their protection. But the idea that being vaccinated will render significant benefits to others is yet to be established. This is a wish; it is not a fact. …

12. “But the healthcare system will be overwhelmed if you don’t get vaccinated.” …

For someone likely to need hospitalisation if they fall sick with Covid-19, it is a selfless act for them to be vaccinated. But this doesn’t mean it should be made mandatory for all people regardless of their risk profile.

These first-generation vaccines are safer than catching covid for many people … in the short term. But in the long term, catching covid may well be safer for some — both from an individual’s perceptive, and for society as a whole. We need more data. Stay tuned.

hat-tip Stephen Neil