“Why would anyone else choose differently?”

“In a democratic society, all of this will be your own decision. No vaccination, choosing not to be part of the community herd – your choice. But be aware you are also choosing to limit opportunities and lifestyle for yourself and your children.”
 
Jen Townsend wrote a recent article in the [newspaper], describing how “anti-vaxers” use scare tactics to convey their point of view. In the article, Ms Townsend explained how a “spruiker for the anti-vax party” approached her, telling her that the “Government was passing a law that would allow officials to enter the property of anti-vaxers, hold them down and forcibly vaccinate them against their will”.
 
The Morrison government has repeatedly stated that the COVID-19 vaccine will be voluntary, so these statements sound rather hysterical to say the least.
 
The law that the “spruiker” was referring to is the Western Australia Public Health Act 2016. Section 158 of the Public Health Act states the following:
 
158. Enforcement of requirement to undergo medical observation, medical examination
 

1. If an authorised officer gives a direction to a person under section 157(1)(j) to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated, an authorised officer or police officer may use reasonable force to ensure that the direction is complied with, including, if necessary --
   1. to apprehend and detain the person to whom the direction applies (the relevant person) and take the relevant person to a place where the person is required to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated in accordance with the direction; and
   2. to detain the relevant person at the place where he or she is required to undergo medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment or to be vaccinated in accordance with the direction; and
   3. to restrain the relevant person --
      1. to enable a medical observation, medical examination or medical treatment to be carried out; or
      2. to enable the relevant person to be vaccinated; and
   4. to remove anything (including underwear) that the relevant person is wearing, if --
      1. the removal of the thing is reasonably necessary to enable a medical examination or medical treatment to be carried out or, as the case requires, to enable the person to be vaccinated; and
      2. the relevant person is given a reasonable opportunity to remove the thing himself or herself, and refuses or fails to do so.

 
Perhaps the “spruiker” wasn’t being so hysterical after all. Why, when all vaccination in Australia is currently voluntary, would an individual need to be apprehended or detained to be vaccinated? It is frightening to even consider that this could be law in one of the states in a democratic country such as Australia.
 
Ms Townsend continues by explaining that “if you do not want to be part of the community gaining herd immunity against COVID, or measles or whooping cough, there are many ways to release you from your obligation to the herd”.
 
“Your children will not be allowed to attend school, you will be able to fly out of the country but not return unless vaccinated, your workplace, especially those with open-plan offices will give preference to applicants that have been vaccinated. There will be some jobs, such as teaching, nursing, paramedic, police, fire-fighter, you may never be allowed to do.”
 
At the time of writing, 4,029 children from 0-19 years of age have been diagnosed with COVID-19. That is out of a total of 29,211 cases, which represents 13.8% of diagnosed cases. Out of the 4,029 children diagnosed, ZERO have died from COVID-19. Not a single school-aged child has died from COVID-19 in over 12 months.
 
Why should children be vaccinated against COVID-19 when the disease is clearly not fatal is this demographic?
 
Safe Work Australia released a statement recently regarding vaccination requirements in the workplace. In the statement, they explicitly stated that “it is unlikely that a requirement to be vaccinated will be reasonably practicable”. One of the reasons for this, according to the statement, is that “at present, public health experts, such as the Australia Health Protection Principal Committee has not recommended a vaccine be made mandatory in any industry”.
 
There are many reasons why people cannot, or choose not to, take the vaccine. Some people have a medical contraindication that prevents them from receiving the vaccine. They may have a history of reactions to vaccines, or they may suffer from allergies and have been advised to avoid the vaccine. What about those who are pregnant or lactating? Should all of these people, including children, be banned from entering the country of their citizenship? Should people have their basic fundamental human rights removed simply for making a decision not to inject toxins into their own body?
 
As Ms Townsend explained, we do live in a democratic society. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of a democracy is a “government by the people (especially rule of the majority), (and) a government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections”.
 
The government doesn’t get to decide whether we take the vaccine, we do.
 
The government doesn’t get to choose where we work, if we can travel, or if our children can go to school, we do.
 
According to the TGA’s Australian Public Assessment Report, the long-term safety and the duration of protection is unknown. Vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission has not yet been addressed. A correlate of protection has yet to be established. The use of the vaccine with other vaccines, the use of the vaccine in pregnant women and lactating mothers, and vaccine efficacy and safety in immunocompromised individuals is also yet to be addressed.
 
According to the Australian Product Information, there is no data on the use of the vaccine in frail patients with co-morbidities (for example, COPD, diabetes, chronic neurological disease, cardiovascular disease) or use of the vaccine in patients with autoimmune or inflammatory disorders.
 
Why would someone choose to take a new, experimental, rush-to-market vaccine with no long-term safety data that doesn’t provide protection nor prevent transmission for a virus with a 99.8% survival rate (for those under 70)?
 
Perhaps when Ms Townsend was asking “why would anyone else choose differently?”, she was actually asking why would anyone choose to receive the vaccine in the first place?
 
Where there is risk, there must be choice. Always.