It is more important to consider exhausted and sick care staff more than unvaccinated people who want to have fun.
This is a cultural article.Analysis and values are the property of the writer.
Preferably beer, but first a good dose of the vaccine.
Farshid Jalalvand has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and is a writer on the cultural side.
Just before the Christmas holidays, misery set in. A growing spread of infection, a hospital that has risen in staff status, a new and honest variant with the evil name omikron. The decision makers ended up in a difficult seat even by their standards. Everyone is tired of the pandemic and wants things to go back to normal. At the same time, no one wants to get sick and end up in the intensive care unit.
Right before Christmas came too Consultation response Regarding the government’s new proposal to extend vaccine passports. Not least that the ombudsman has some justified criticism of how far-reaching the measures can be. In addition, rather serious voices were raised to discuss the issue more critically. On social media, for example, the right-wing profile Ivar Arbe hints that vaccination status does not play a role in the spread of infection.
Well, let’s discuss the case. First the practical: Great study from Denmark Those who examined the prevalence of omicron in nearly 12,000 households showed that unvaccinated people were infected 40 percent more than those who received two doses of the vaccine, and nearly 100 percent more than those who received three doses. And unvaccinated people also get a lot easier, of course: about twice as much as triple fertilization in the case of the omicron, and more than seven times in the case of the delta. At the population level, this has a significant impact.
With this in mind We can now discuss the issue in principle. Are there any circumstances in which the introduction of vaccination with passports can be justified? We can do a thought experiment. Imagine a scenario in which we witness a community spread of airborne infection with a mortality rate of 20 percent. Fortunately, there is a vaccine against the disease, but the protective effect does not exceed 95% against the fatal outcome. At the same time, unvaccinated people are known to spread the infection to a much greater extent than vaccinated people.
Was a vaccination permit ethically justified for occasions where many people congregate? If yes, then there is no objection in principle to vaccination permits per se. On the other hand, if the answer is no, there are those who believe that one’s right to participation always trumps the right of others to life and health.
Most people probably join the first group: Vaccine cards are justified under certain circumstances. Then we come to the trade-offs: in what circumstances is a vaccine passport justified? How broad are any restrictions that might be? And how much should it be valid?
My position has It has been consistent from the start: Permit to pass the vaccine is justified for limited periods of time – eg winter – when the infection is spreading. This is because of the sudden and rising stress on care that the coronavirus can cause. Stress is becoming a major problem in the work environment at one of the nation’s largest workplaces (which is also a supportive body for society), and the sudden influx of COVID-19 patients is causing significant debts of care and potential health risks to others.
Here, someone might object that we should only increase the capacity of care. We can and must have a long-term discussion about health care resources. But training healthcare professionals takes many years, not months. There is no money in the world that can conjure IVA nurses overnight – we need a solution here and now.
So passports for vaccines are a way forward. But it shouldn’t be about such indispensable things as looking for sponsorship, shopping for food, or traveling around the community. Therefore, the government’s proposal to introduce Covid passports in public transport is unfortunate. But being a passport valid in a pub, football arena, cinema or concert hall is less controversial. The unvaccinated person’s desire to participate in specific public recreational events does not outweigh the right to health of his fellow.
Finally: my impression (which has been confirmed by clinically active colleagues) is that there is a large cohort of young people between the ages of 16 and 40 who are not vaccinated because of laziness and apathy, not for ideological reasons. For them, vaccination cards have proven to be a good incentive to stop delaying vaccination. This is a relief: on the one hand, they do not end up in hospital due to infection, and on the other hand, they contribute to our common defense against the virus. The vaccine passport also serves a purpose here.
Ida Olmedal, Cultural Director of Seydsvenskan I recently wondered if it was hassle free For example, requiring people to identify themselves with vaccine passports in order to participate in politically sensitive meetings. No, vaccine permits are not without problems. In the end, the question is about the interests of the different groups that are in conflict with each other. But if there are, on the one hand, advanced IVA nurses, chronically ill patients whose care has been deferred and fragile elderly people who want to remain in as safe a public environment as possible, it is hard to justify how the interests of the opposing group are weighed more so heavily.
“Extreme tv maven. Beer fanatic. Friendly bacon fan. Communicator. Wannabe travel expert.”