Share
We
are in a new territory amidst anxiety and pressure to take the Covid-19 vaccine
jabs. The media and some stronger public advocates for Covid-19 vaccines had
for a long time discouraged and tended to dismiss voices preoccupied with complex
and nuanced questions about safety.
Touching
on complexity and nuances for a while has been judged as either you’re with us
or you are against us. Many such Covid-19 vaccine proponents said it is just so
simple. They don’t see what the fuss is all about. If only science was always
that straightforward.
It
was after global reports from Europe and beyond about blood clot occurrence
that opened up a Pandora’s Box about risks. It made it possible for some to
mention safety concerns to a point. Before that a public mention about safety
concern tended to be dismissed outright as not deserving a hearing, and largely
reduced to conspiracy theories.
Reports
about blood clots saw hesitancy level going from 13% to about 30%.
Interestingly,
lately increased numbers of international doctors and medical scientists have
circulated descriptive and analytical material describing safety and ethical
concerns connected to Covid-19 vaccines and certain tests. Some of these
contrasts sharply from media vaccine advocacy that chose to engage less with
complexity and nuance.
But
as levels of hesitancy became more visible, even the media started admitting
that the issue is not simply vaccine supply, but also increased hesitancy in
getting Covid-19 jab. I remember once reading a media report which had noticed
only one person had turned up at a Covid-19 vaccination centre.
Mind
you, the hesitant folk include some well-educated healthcare workers and aides who
chose not rush for the jab or not take it at all. According to literature and
media reports this is the case in a number of countries such as Australia, the
US and Singapore.
What
also makes this new territory is the unprecedented level of pressure from the
media to stigmatise people that they must be anti-vaccination across the board,
even when it’s clear many people take various vaccines, but do not wish to be
rushed into Covid-19 jab without exercising informed choice and autonomy in
decision-making.
If
a significant minority of medical doctors and clinical nurses or paramedics are
not rushing for a Covid-19 jab, it is a puzzle when the media and some politicians
feel more qualified to want to compel even reluctant clinicians from taking the
jab ASAP.
There
are also ethical considerations to these treatments that are at odds with a compulsory
approach.
Clearly
the Australian federal Opposition, media and some State Governments recently seemed
to succeed in exerting pressure on the Federal Government to accelerate the
pace of vaccination and engage in strategies that indirectly compel people to
take the jab. This is despite the Federal Government’s medical expert panel
advising against a compulsory approach.
By
this June 4, 2021 the Australian National Cabinet Meeting was reportedly now
inclined to consider a shift towards mandatory vaccination for aged care
workers and disability workers.
Mandatory Vaccinations of Aged Care and Disability
Workers
National Cabinet reaffirmed the
importance of Aged Care and Disability workers being vaccinated as soon as
possible.
National Cabinet indicated an
in-principle disposition to mandating aged care and disability workforce COVID
vaccinations, and has tasked AHPPC to provide advice on this matter as soon as
possible.
National Cabinet noted that influenza
vaccinations are able to be mandated under state public health orders and other
similar state and territory legislative arrangements, based on health advice.
Source:
National Cabinet Statement 04/06/2021. https://www.pm.gov.au/media/national-cabinet-statement-040621
At
the same time isolated media reports were indicating that in Western Australia
some hotel security guards chose to quit jobs rather than accept a Western
Australia State Government rule forcing them to take Covid-19 vaccines.
The
last decade saw a limited strategic aged care workforce development in
Australia, if any. If not for migrant labour force, it is hard to see how
Australian aged care providers will manage. We saw workforce constraints at the
peak of the pandemic in Eastern States. Workforce constraints are also
indicated with community homecare packages where client waiting lists persist.
And
while some of the hesitant working folk may take the jab if mandated, it is unlikely
all of them will do so. We can expect mixed outcomes as the security guards who
chose to leave the industry. understandably some in the aged care could face a
similar choice.
Also
work managers are increasingly being expected to nudge along their stuff to go
and get a jab. And presumably some organisations are expected to make business
arrangements that ensure jabs can be taken at the workplace such as aged care
or disability services. Pressure is on!
The
strategy of using workplace managers to prod staff into jabs is problematic. It
seems not to sit well with the idea of informed consent. Using managers as
influencers is also an indirect way of linking job opportunities and rewards
with willingness to get a jab.
So
while some could take the jab for fear of not wanting to lose a job, the ethics
of nudging people along in this way leaves something to be desired. Managers
are not medical doctors.
Some
suggested using employment law at an organisational level to get people to take
a jab. Similarly, we have also now long
heard the idea of no jab no overseas travel being worked through by Airlines, the
World Health Organisation and other some tourism stakeholders
The
nature of social relations also come to the fore – take an example where by
implication some folk feel they should impose on hospital clinicians, paramedics,
aged care, disability workers, and some hesitant migrants to take a jab.
Some
it appears wish to have more of say into choices made by some of those
residents living in aged care and disability facilities to take a jab. They
take great exception that in some instances these aged care and disability
residents and their families have not yet gone for the jab. Switch on the Tele,
the pressure from the media and influencers indicate that the Fed Government
should get this job done. But is it clear cut that Government should compel the
hesitant vulnerable groups indirectly or directly?
As
we can see, in this new territory some of the core liberal democracy values about
liberty, ethics, informed consent, choice and autonomy, safety, and such become
implicated – treatments and vaccinations don’t occur in a vacuum. So it would
appear times before us we will see interplays and contestation about whether
Governments and business can directly and indirectly compel people to take
vaccines.
It
looks like emerging spaces for vaccine take-up contestation may include the employment
realm, airline travel, access to certain public spaces, etc. To this interplay
add the debates about to what extent the jabs will prevent Covid-19 infection? Further,
are questions concerning absence of longitudinal Covid-19 vaccine studies which
cannot be known for some years yet. The specificity of Covid-19 vaccines is
also likely to be further examined as we are told this is a new generation of
vaccines underpinned by new technological innovations.
Links:
More than
1.5m Covid vaccines sitting unused in clinics across Australia, Wed 19
May 2021. Sarah Martin. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/19/more-than-15m-covid-vaccines-sitting-unused-in-clinics-across-australia
AFP, Four reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among
health care workers, and ways to counter them, Tuesday Apr 27, 2021 https://www.aafp.org/journals/fpm/blogs/inpractice/entry/countering_vaccine_hesitancy.html
Share
