[ad_1]
Emma Brockes makes a good argument against the use of shame and ridicule against vaccine hesitant (Should we shame anti-vaccines? This can only backfire, July 31). However, she leaves the very last sentence with the most important consideration: “Why does he think so? The key to persuading the hesitant is certainly to separate the different categories of concerns / attitudes and address these issues directly and explicitly – something neither governments nor the media have attempted to do.
Allowing target groups to remain an amorphous body of “unvaccinated” helps to sow resentment among those with understandable concerns, as they are lumped together with baseless conspiracyists. Inveterate libertarians, on the other hand, acquire false legitimacy by associating with those who claim genuine (if inaccurate) medical fears. It is rare that any of these groups are required to cite reliable facts to defend their positions, if only because their opinions are mainly sought by the media through vox-pop reporting.
Rather than relying on fancy inducements or reactive explanations, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom might be more effective at persuading the hesitant if they approached these types of misinformation clearly, separately, and repeatedly. Reliable information remains the best form of vaccination against the contagion of syllogistic and simplistic logic.
Paul McGilchrist
Colchester, Essex
John Harris makes some good points about this government’s intention to rule by executive order and stifle the public’s right to protest (Brexit and Covid created the perfect time for the policy of repression on August 1). However, it is wrong to try to confuse this with the case of “green passes” – the term “vaccine passports” is too simplistic since the absence of infection, and therefore non-infectivity, can be verified by other means than simple vaccination.
The means to implement a green pass system already exist and would prevent the uncontained spread of the coronavirus, with its concomitant hospitalization and death toll, minimizing the possibility of pubs, clubs, concerts and matches becoming venues of great diffusion. Measures specifically designed to suppress the spread of a deadly virus are public health measures, not matters of personal freedom.
Senior
Aylesbeare, Devon
I support the idea of vaccine passports in specific contexts such as universities or if an employer wants their employees to be vaccinated. I also deplore the possibility that they will be found to be discriminatory if challenged in court.
UK human rights law states: “No restriction shall be placed on the exercise of these rights. [freedom of association] rights other than those prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of order or crime, for the protection of health or of morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. “
I’m not a lawyer, but these comments make it clear to me that the prescription of such evidence could allow an employer to protect their workforce by ensuring that no employee is more likely to transmit Covid- 19 than most of the general population. Their employees might also welcome this approach. In the absence of such a prescription, I suspect that notices could be posted in, say, stores where all employees are known to be vaccinated, and in the absence of such a notice, customers could go away.
Patrick cosgrove
Chapel Lawn, Shropshire
Source link
