Since the inception of HART, an absolutely core part of our earliest commentary has been critical review of plans to implement vaccine certification. This was first mentioned in our March 2021 Dossier of Evidence as a review of the ethical minefield and was followed up by numerous articles criticising subsequent policy decisions that have been made both here and abroad.
A recent article published in prestigious scientific journal BMJ global health has questioned the effectiveness of vaccination mandates during the Covid-19 pandemic and pointed out their unintended consequences.
The media continues to push a hate campaign towards the unvaccinated – but who are they? Every unvaccinated person will have their own reasons for making this decision about their health. Only they can understand what is best for their individual circumstances and that is how it should be.
Changing the total population estimate results in large swings in the estimate of ‘case’ rates in the unvaccinated. Given the inability to be accurate within a few percentage points, and the uncertainty about whether the inaccuracies are overestimating or underestimating the total, the differences between populations is not as informative as the trend in rates within each of the populations.
What is the point of principles protecting the rights of the individual if they can be undermined at the slightest hint of a possible perceived harm, or a small risk of such a harm? What if the proposed solution creates greater harm, or just a series of different harms?