Prime Minister Scott Morrison recently stated that “international borders will only open when it is safe to do so”, and that we “still have a long way to go, and there are still many uncertainties ahead”. Mr Morrison also claimed that he “doesn’t see an appetite” for Australia opening its borders, and that he intends to be “cautious” with the vaccine rollout.
“All I know is once you let (COVID-19) back in again, you cannot get it out. You’ve crossed that threshold. We continue to roll out the vaccination program, over the course of this year, and in the meantime, I intend to be cautious, it’s in my nature.”
It may be in Mr Morrison’s nature to be cautious, but how does this help the 36,000 Australians stranded overseas? Nearly 5,000 of these people are considered vulnerable. And this doesn’t include the hundreds of thousands of Australians currently living abroad as expats who are unable to return home to see their family and friends.
The United Nations human rights committee requested that Australia promptly allow two Australian citizens to return home from the US last month. More recently, an Australian citizen stranded in India launched a lawsuit against Health Minister Greg Hunt following the travel ban on flights from India, and the threat of fines of up to $66,600, or five years imprisonment, or both.
However, here is the most important thing. The Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, stated that there was not “considerable clinical evidence that tells us transmission is preventable”. There it is. Our own Prime Minister finally acknowledging that the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission.
If the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, why are we being told repeatedly that we need to take it to protect our loved ones, those who are more vulnerable, and the community in general?
If the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, why do we need a vaccine passport?
A vaccine by definition provides immunity and prevents transmission. If the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, why is it being labelled as a vaccine to begin with?
Finance Minister Simon Birmingham echoed Mr Morrison’s comments by saying that there are “uncertainties around aspects of the vaccine rollout including the duration of effectiveness of vaccines, what it means in relation to other variants of COVID”.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration’s Australian Public Assessment Report for the Pfizer vaccine states that the “duration of protection is not yet known”. It also says that “vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection and viral transmission” has not yet been addressed, and that “a correlate of protection has yet to be established”.
This report was published in January 2021, and it clearly states that the vaccine does not prevent transmission. The clinical trials were not designed to detect transmission prevention. The government has known this information all along, so why wasn’t it made public? Is it possible that even less people would choose to take the vaccine if they knew that it didn’t prevent transmission?
Health Minister Greg Hunt recently weighed into the discussion on reopening the international borders. In a press conference, Mr Hunt said, “Is travel an incentive for people to be vaccinated? Absolutely.” He also stated that people who have been vaccinated will have an “easier passage out and easier passage in” with regards to travelling in and out of the country.
Why does the government need to incentivise the vaccine? If the pandemic was as bad as they make it out to be, and the vaccine was safe and effective, why are people not lining up to take it? Why does the government need to convince people of its benefits? Wouldn’t people naturally take it to protect their health and the health of those around them?
In NSW, six travellers who returned from overseas, all of whom were fully vaccinated, tested positive for the virus. The vaccine does not provide immunity. The Australian Public Assessment Report and the data from the clinical trials confirms this. In fact, the data from the clinical trials for the Pfizer vaccine showed no statistical significance in preventing COVID-19 seven days after the second dose.
MP’s Craig Kelly and George Christensen have already signalled that they will oppose the introduction of a vaccine passport. There are currently 17 states in the US who have either signed executive orders, or who are in the process of signing executive orders, to ban vaccine passports.
Mr Christensen stated that vaccine passports would “segregate Australians into haves and have nots”, labelling them as “discriminatory”. He has asked his followers on social media to “push back for the sake of freedom”. We should all support Mr Kelly and Mr Christensen in their fight to ban vaccine passports.
One of our basic human rights is the right to travel, and those who choose not to take the vaccine should not be punished for doing so. Vaccine passports would remove this basic human right.
It is time to stand up and take back our freedoms. Our government have been elected to serve us, not the other way around.
Many of our freedoms have already been stolen from us. Will our right to travel overseas to see loved ones, to work, or to experience the world be next?
Join us on our Stand Up Australia tour. Visit www.standupnowaustralia.com.au for more information.
Our articles and rebuttal pieces are written by our writers on our volunteer team