Vaccine passports are best option
In his latest email to constituents, Russell Broadbent has come out against the use of vaccine passports and taken a swipe at vaccines themselves.
The facts are that those who vaccinate pose significantly less risk to the community and a significantly less risk of spreading the disease and becoming severely ill, ending up in ICUs or dying.
It is in the order of 40-60 per cent based on studies of 365,000 households in the UK. Those who don't vaccinate for whatever reason, data suggests, are more likely to spread the disease.
Should they be isolated? Logic says yes. Should those who have much less of a chance of spreading it be allowed to be less isolated? Again, logic says yes.
So how can you tell these two distinct groups of people apart? Proof of vaccination needs to be established, hence the passport idea.
How much are we willing to accept as a death rate. Vaccination has been proven to dramatically reduce the death rate.
It may be just a number but each number represents a person who has impacted on someone else's life. Friends and family members of that person will grieve for them and there will be an irreplaceable member of the community gone.
Soon businesses will realise that litigation may arise if they don't provide a safe workspace for their staff.
They will also realise that their customers will demand safe places to purchase their goods and services, or they will spend their money elsewhere. From a pure health point of view, probably the businesses that should invoke proof of vaccination first should be health professionals, particularly oncology and heart and respiratory clinics as they have the most vulnerable of patients attending.
It is a risk management situation. Personal liberties are also impacted by lockdowns which are currently covering broad sectors of the community including entire states. Governments will be forced to enact different health orders to cover the ones who, though eligible to be vaccinated, have opted not to.
To police that, vaccine passports seem to be the best option. If a small proportion of the population, because of their own choice, miss out on participating in various activities, that is a consequence of the choice they make. They will call it discrimination, but the choice these individuals are making impacts on others. They are not losing the freedom to choose but will receive a reminder that with that freedom comes responsibility.
I can't see any other way to avoid the worst outcomes of the pandemic except by vaccination, contact tracing, isolating and lockdowns. If there is another pathway that protects my friends, family and the broader community, then could Mr Broadbent please outline it backed up with verifiable epidemiological data. I would be quite happy to be proven wrong.
Greg Tuck, Warragul