Scientists at leading US, UK universities slam Australia’s expulsion of Novak Djokovic
Urge leader to dump mandates
By Adam Creighton 13 Feb 2022 The Australian
Scientists at leading American and British universities have slammed Australia’s expulsion of tennis star Novak Djokovic as “authoritarian” in new research that condemns Northern Territory’s “lockdown of the unvaccinated” as “punitive, discriminatory and coercive… and counter-productive”.
Amid growing protests against vaccine mandates throughout the world, including in Paris, Ottawa and Canberra, nine leading scientists from universities including Oxford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, have urged mandates be dumped in light of evidence they were “scientifically questionable, ethically problematic, and misguided”.
“Denying individuals education, livelihoods, medical care, or social life unless they get vaccinated does not appear to coincide with constitutional and bioethical principles, especially in liberal democracies,” they added in a research paper published last week.
Singling out Australia, Austria and Germany for locking down the unvaccinated, the authors warned the “risks and harms” from mandates to combat Covid-19 had reached a point where they “far outweighed the benefits”.
Australia deported Mr Djokovic from Melbourne in January on public health grounds after the tennis number one refused to reveal his vaccination status, prompting an international furore.
“The explicit characterisation of Mr Djokovic as a threat to Australian ‘civil order and public health’ underlines concerns of vaccine mandates and passports as a tool for authoritarian behaviour,” the authors said.
“Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport, and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and wellbeing.”
The scientists said governments had systematically overplayed the effectiveness of the vaccines, underplayed the risks, ignored natural immunity, and mislead populations by not following through with promises to ease restrictions once targets had been reached, fuelling anger that might not quickly subside.
“They have become a source for collective rage and anger, notably for those who have been fired from their jobs or isolated and barred from social life,” they said, suggesting mandates were fuelling extremism on both sides of the debate and did little to lift vaccination rates among vulnerable who most needed to be vaccinated.
European nations and some US states including have dropped or planned to drop Covid-19 restrictions entirely in recent weeks, amid falling infection rates and polling suggesting voters had become tired of restrictions as the pandemic enters its third year in March.
The research condemned Northern Territory chief minister Michael Gunner, who drew international attention in January, ordering a lockdown of unvaccinated residents following similar policies in Germany and Austria a month earlier.
“If you are anti-mandate, you are absolutely anti-vax, I don‘t care what your personal vaccination status is. Your personal vaccination status is not relevant. If you campaign against the mandate…If you say ’pro-persuasion’, stuff it, shove it. You are anti-vax,” the territory leader said at the time.
Protests in Canada against mandates, originally centred in Canada’s capital, which has been in gridlock for weeks as thousands of protesters, many with trucks, blocked city streets, have spread to key crossings between the US and Canadian border, prompting calls for the military to intervene.
Senator Rand Paul sits down with The Daily Signal's Mary Margaret Olohan
Web link here
On Friday Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, who has blasted the protesters as racists, promised US president Joe Biden “quick action” to unblock the Ambassador Bridge, the world’s largest suspension bridge, which links Michigan and Ontario.
Evidence in the UK and Israel had shown passports that require vaccination to participate in public life increased anger, fuelled mistrust and did little or possibly even reduced, uptake of vaccines which had saved millions of lives.
“Forcefully implemented vaccine policies may entrench existing beliefs of distrust by creating a strong confirmation bias that governments and corporate powers are acting in an authoritarian manner,” they said, noting out some regulatory agencies appeared to be protecting the interests of pharmaceutical companies.
In December 2020, before vaccine were widely available, the World Health Organisation’s immunisation department stated: “I don’t think we envision any countries creating a mandate for [COVID-19] vaccination”.
The scientists said governments had become progressively more authoritarian throughout the pandemic, paving the way for a greater surveillance of individuals’ movement and health choices in the future.
“Will unvaccinated people face exclusions in society for years to come? Will we return to new mandates, and street battles between protesters and police, each time a new variant emerges?”
Original article here
Research Paper here
‘No Jab No Pay’ and other immunisation measures
Budget Review 2015–16 Index
Michael Klapdor and Alex Grove
Immunisation measures feature strongly in this Budget, with three measures aimed at improving vaccination rates and reducing the spread of vaccine preventable disease.
‘No Jab No Pay’
In April 2015, the Government announced that it would close off some exemptions from the immunisation requirements for eligibility for the FTB-A end-of-year supplement, Child Care Benefit (CCB) and Child Care Rebate (CCR) payments stating that it was extremely concerned at the risk non-vaccinated children pose to public health.[1] A requirement for children to meet immunisation schedules has been attached to childcare payments since 1998 and for the FTB-A supplement from 2012 (coinciding with the abolition of a separate, immunisation specific payment: the Maternity Immunisation Allowance). Exemptions from the immunisation requirements for those with medical reasons and for those who submit a conscientious objection to immunisation have been included in the relevant legislation since these immunisation requirements were put in place in 1998, as have legislative instruments allowing for an exemption specifically for members of the Church of Christ, Scientist.[2] On 12 April 2015, the Government announced that it would remove the conscientious objector exemption but retain the medical and Christian Scientist exemption.[3] On 19 April 2015, Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, announced that after discussions with the Church of Christ, Scientist, their specific exemption would be removed as the Church advised it was no longer necessary.[4]
The measure not only removes these exemptions but will extend the requirements to include children of all ages—currently, for the FTB-A supplement, qualifying children need to meet the relevant vaccination schedule requirements for the financial year in which they turn one, two and five years old.[5] For child care payment eligibility, all children under seven years must meet the relevant vaccine schedule requirements on any day CCB/CCR is claimed. From 1 January 2016, children of all ages must be up-to-date with their childhood immunisations or lose eligibility for these payments, with exemptions granted only for medical reasons. The Government expects the measure will result in savings of $508.3 million over five years.[6] Media reports suggest around 10,000 families will lose eligibility for payments in 2016–17 as a result of the measure, though many more are expected to act to ensure all their children are up-to-date with their childhood immunisation schedules (including teenagers who missed some childhood vaccinations).[7]
The percentage of children under seven years with a conscientious objection recorded on the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register (ACIR) has risen from 0.23 per cent in December 1999 to 1.77 per cent in December 2014.[8] The Government holds that removing non-medical exemptions will ‘reinforce the importance of immunisation and protecting public health’ and that ‘the choice made by families not to immunise their children is not supported by public policy or medical research nor should such action be supported by taxpayers in the form of child care payments’.[9]
Registered conscientious objectors represent a minority of the total number of children not up-to-date with their vaccination schedules—around 20 per cent of all children aged one, two or five who are not fully immunised.[10] For children up to five years of age, immunisation rates range from around 90 to 92 per cent (depending on the age group). While there has been an increase in immunisation coverage since 1998, overall rates have remained static in recent years.[11]
The Budget measure is primarily targeted at conscientious objectors but will affect all those who receive child care subsidies or the FTB-A supplement and whose children’s vaccination records are not up-to-date. Some parents refuse to vaccinate their children out of a concern that potential harms outweigh the benefits or because of particular moral or philosophical beliefs, but many others have failed to keep up-to-date with vaccination schedules as a result of practical difficulties in accessing services.[12] A Western Australia survey of families with children who had no vaccinations recorded on the ACIR found that the most common reason was that the families had moved from overseas and their children’s vaccination records had not been added to the national register (though only a small number of these children would have been considered fully immunised under the Australian schedules).[13]
While the measure poses a significant financial incentive for parents to ensure their children are immunised, some health professionals and researchers have questioned whether imposing financial penalties is an effective way of lifting immunisation rates and engaging with parents who are hesitant about vaccinations. Hal Willaby and Julie Leask from the University of Sydney have argued that other measures which address access issues and which prompt parents who are behind on their children’s vaccination schedules would be more effective in boosting coverage rates.[14] The other budget measures relating to immunisation, described below, are aimed at addressing some of these issues. Willaby and Leask also argue that removing the chance for conscientious objectors to discuss their position with a health professional (which is required in order for a parent to register their objection) forgoes an opportunity to engage with these parents and address their concerns.[15] President of the Australian Medical Association, Brian Owler, stated that it was a concern that such large savings were expected from the measure: ‘it indicates that a number of people aren't going to vaccinate their children. What we should be saying is we need to make sure that we do get all those children vaccinated and we should be aiming to actually continue to spend the same amount on those sorts of Family Tax Benefits’.[16]
Other immunisation measures
The Budget includes $161.8 million over five years for new and amended listings to the National Immunisation Program (NIP) Schedule of free vaccines.[17] Listings include an extra dose of Diptheria, Tetanus and Acellular Pertussis (DTPa) vaccine for 18 month olds, for extra protection against whooping cough, and Zostavax vaccine to prevent shingles for 70 year olds (with a catch up program for 71–79 year olds).[18]
There is also $26.4 million over four years to improve immunisation coverage rates, particularly in children and adolescents.[19] The Government intends to:
make an incentive payment to doctors and other immunisation providers when they identify a child who is overdue for vaccination and call them in for a catch up
fund an awareness campaign to promote the NIP and address parents’ concerns regarding immunisation and
expand the existing National Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Program Register (the HPV register) to include all adolescent vaccinations delivered in schools under the NIP.[20]
Currently the ACIR records NIP vaccinations for children up to the age of seven.[21] Adolescent and adult NIP vaccinations are not recorded nationally, with the exception of the HPV register, which is specific to the one vaccine.[22] Expanding the HPV register to become the ‘Australian School Vaccination Register’ will allow for the recording of other adolescent vaccinations, and is intended to ‘provide the tools needed, such as recall and reminder systems, to improve adolescent coverage rates.’[23]
Health professionals have previously called for the introduction of a whole-of-life register to include adult vaccinations.[24] The Government appears to have heeded these calls, although the exact nature of their response is not yet clear. The NIP Budget measure states that ‘[a]n adult vaccination register will be established to record all adult vaccines provided under the NIP from 1 September 2016’, but a media release from the Minister has the Government ‘exploring options to capture adult immunisation records.’[25] Similar ideas have been proposed in the past, but not fully investigated. In 2006 the Government announced $1.2 million for a scoping study to examine ‘the feasibility of establishing a whole-of-life immunisation register’, but it appears that the study did not proceed.[26]
Through these efforts to improve coverage rates, coupled with financial penalties for non-compliance with immunisation schedules, the Government believes that it is taking a ‘balanced “carrot and stick” approach’ to encouraging vaccination.[27] Of course, the sizeable savings expected from the ‘stick’ element may not be realised if these policies succeed in significantly lifting childhood immunisation rates.
Wonderful to see some serious scientists calling bullshit on the bullshit. Thanks for posting!