This is Par 3 of this article. Read the last part here: Part 2During this pandemic, Bill Gates warned that the U.S has an issue of distrust of people toward the government due to political issues. In fact, this is not only a U.S issue; such distrusts have been an issue among many Western countries. In his book, to illustrate the importance of building trust in government, he said, “IHME’s data suggests that a country’s success against COVID correlates roughly with how much people there trust the government. This makes intuitive sense since if you have confidence in your government, you’re more likely to follow its guidelines.” He also said, “Building trust between people and their government takes years of painstaking, purposeful work.”
Describing the situation that the U.S has, Bill Gates said, “The White House’s response in 2020 was disastrous. The president and his senior aides downplayed the pandemic and gave the public terrible advice…The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is a political appointee subject to political pressure, and some of the CDC’s public guidance was clearly influenced by politics.” He further provided an example: On Feb 29, 2020, the surgeon general tweeted that people should “STOP BUYING MASKS” because they are “not preventing” COVID (which turned out not to be true).
Bill Gates only described a small aspect of the political issue in the U.S. In fact, the political factor has played a huge role in influencing Americans’ thoughts. In his book, Bill Gates only talks about the distrust toward governments among black people due to the past event. Nevertheless, research from KFF shows among people who expressed they are not willing to get vaccinated, 65% of the people are white; black and Hispanic people only account for 13% respectively [1]https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/poll-finding/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-july-2021/ . Meanwhile, 58% of Americans who expressed they don’t want to get the vaccines are Republicans. So I think the distrust toward the government is probably more a political issue that sowing seeds of distrust in people’s minds; a sole distrust issue among black people due to past events is only a small portion of this distrust situation.
In my view, the argument of not wearing masks because people have the freedom to choose to wear masks or not is also a good example of people being influenced by Republicans’ objections to the mask mandate. The situation also happened in not only the U.S but also in many countries, especially western countries. For example, in the U.K, during the early time of this pandemic, the former U.K prime minister Boris Johnson, an instinctive libertarian, declared a national emergency, having just weeks earlier joked about shaking hands with coronavirus patients[2]https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2020/07/neil-ferguson-covid-modeller . Just as what happened in the U.S, even the leader of the country gave terrible advice of not wearing masks, no wonder many people in the two countries didn’t wear masks when they should.
Misinformation during the pandemic also influences people’s thoughts. According to KFF, 78% of the public in the U.S believes or is unsure about at Least one false COVID-19 statement, and nearly a third believe at least four of eight false COVID-19 statements tested [3] … Continue reading. In fact, misinformation (fake news) has already been a serious issue in the U.S. According to one report in 2016, 64% of Americans said fake news has made them confused about basic facts. 23% said they have shared a made-up story – either knowingly or not [4]https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2016/12/15/many-americans-believe-fake-news-is-sowing-confusion/ . It is now simply reaching this pandemic. U.S. Surgeon General Murthy also said that COVID-19 misinformation comes mostly from individuals who may not know they are spreading false claims, though there are indeed a few “bad actors” [5]https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-surgeon-general-warns-over-covid-19-misinformation-2021-07-15/ .
Suggestion
(1) Distrust issue toward governments
This issue actually has a severe impact on the control of this pandemic in many countries, especially in western countries. Nevertheless, the issue can be solved by learning from Taiwan, a country where average civilians have no problem following mask mandates and most of the government’s regulations on disease control. How? I suggest that western countries start with education on health and hygiene for every citizen. The SARS in Taiwan is a good example. During the SARS outbreak in Taiwan, every citizen of Taiwan, from the elderly to children, had been well educated on how to protect themselves from the virus by the government, including wearing a mask and washing hands frequently and thoroughly. At that time, more uneducated people only possess junior high school degrees in Taiwan. The government created an easy-to-understand slogan to teach people how to protect themselves, and everyone including children understands the necessary measures (mask, wash hands) and performs quite well because of either parent’s teaching – parent learned how to do it from the news, or school’s teaching. For example, either parents or teachers in school would teach elementary school students how to wash hands thoroughly, and there were stickers of how-to-wash-hand-thoroughly as educational reminders in vanity units of schools; such stickers had been also distributed to households. There is one that has been posted on the door of the bathroom in my parent’s house since I was a child. See, the education really went deeply into the grassroots.
As a result of this successful education, the concept of health and hygiene has been in most Taiwanese minds. When the current COVID-19 pandemic happened, no one in Taiwan, including the opposition parties, question the necessity of mask mandate and other regulations against the virus. Everyone understands that these measures are necessary; if there was an opposition party objecting mask mandate, I think the majority of Taiwanese would say those politicians are insane and that the opposition party would lose its popularity a lot.
My father is also a good example of that trust has been built toward the government among Taiwanese in terms of disease control events. My father only has a junior high school diploma. He isn’t a clean person, compared to normal Taiwanese. However, during this COVID-19 pandemic, he wears a mask every day when he goes out. More worth mentioning, specifically for this pandemic, the Taiwan government suggests people use alcohol to disinfect items that are frequently used. Before this pandemic, alcohol use of disinfection isn’t a common thing among average households (It wasn’t suggested in the SARS outbreak); it would be seen more frequently in the bathrooms of some high-end restaurants or bars, but not in average households. When this pandemic began and the Taiwan government provided a suggestion of alcohol use, my parents just went to buy alcohol regularly. My father, a really unclean person in normal times, uses alcohol to spray the living room every day. You just see how the trust in the government really pays off in the example of my father.
True, the political divide can make some western governments’ work more difficult. Nevertheless, people can be educated. For example, in the U.S, there is no such political divide on the Russia-Ukraine issue; both Democrats and Republicans know they need to support Ukraine. However, in Taiwan, there is a political divide on the Russia-Ukraine issue. Many Taiwanese think that it’s President Zelensky’s fault for not surrendering, believe the anti-U.S theory of the Ukraine issue, think Taiwan is the next abandoned pawn, and feel confused when reading some hostile comments toward Ukraine’s president. Due to there being an anti-U.S theory, much of these thoughts are probably brainwashed by the Chinese Nationalist Party in Taiwan, which sometimes has pro-China stands. Taiwanese need such education on the Russia-Ukraine issue; that’s why when I wrote an article about the Russia-Ukraine issue, I also include why such Taiwanese thoughts are wrong.
The U.S or any western country also needs an education in health and hygiene measures against the disease. Although the difficulty posed by the political divide still exists, governments can try to make opposition parties on the same line in terms of the health issue and educate civilians – because health issues, just like the humanity issue of Ukraine, shouldn’t be manipulated by politics. If such an education indeed goes deep into the grassroots, I believe that in the future, when such an outbreak happens again, any political party in any country won’t doubt wearing a mask, because it becomes common sense (Very important, please mark this word: It becomes common sense). And if there is a politician or political party is against mask mandate, people including supporters of that political party would just call such politicians or a political party who are against mask mandates insane, and their popularity will drop very quickly and easily. That’s also why I explain why you need to wear a mask in Point 1 in this article.
Although the Taiwanese have more trust in the government when it comes to disease control matters, the trust doesn’t cover all of the topics of disease control. In 2021, after some Taiwanese received the vaccination, the Taiwan government demanded people show vaccine passports to enter some public spaces. This regulation arose some dissatisfaction from the opposition party at the moment – the Chinese Nationalist Party. Following the response of Western people who said it’s their freedom to enter any public space without vaccine passports, many Taiwanese, especially supporters of the Chinese Nationalist Party, have also argued that it should be their freedom to choose to be vaccinated or not, therefore it’s their freedom to enter any public space without vaccine passports. Unlike mask mandate or washing hand, the concept of vaccine passport is also new to Taiwanese, just as most western people; so when Taiwanese receives the concept of freedom of entering public spaces from the Western world, they think it makes sense. True, it’s a controversial topic that remains unsolved globally, and it seems to make sense when it comes to the ideas of “undermining freedom of entering any place” or “undermining the right of getting an education”. The U.S Supreme Court also rejects Biden’s workplace vaccine mandate [6]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59989476 .” However, I do have some points regarding why vaccine passports are necessary and shouldn’t be a subject of “undermining human rights”.
First, although a vaccine passport is controversial, it is necessary and important. I don’t think I need to explain why it’s necessary. Let’s move on to the second point. Second, the concern is that it undermines people’s human rights. So why it’s shouldn’t be the subject of “undermining human rights”? Because of the same concept: You shouldn’t undermine other people’s “freedom of living”. Just as not wearing a mask, by not having vaccinations, you put yourself and other people in danger of getting an infection, you, therefore, undermine other people’s “freedom of living”. The basic concept is this: Yes – you have the right to choose not to get vaccinated, but you also shouldn’t undermine people’s freedom of living. Therefore, you can remain unvaccinated, but if you go to a restaurant or a strip club in Linsen North Road of Taipei, governments or owners of such spaces have the right to reject you as a customer because they have the right to protect other customers or their workers.
In my view, the measure of vaccine passports should also adjust according to the types of public spaces. For example, I think vaccine passports suit quite well with public spaces such as restaurants or bars to reject an unvaccinated customer, but I also think there are places that are still up for negotiation on whether to use vaccine passports. For schools, some workspaces, or even restaurants as workplaces for workers (not customers), is “the right of education” of students or “the right of work” of employees undermined when demanding vaccine passports? My answer is that owners of these public spaces should examine based on four factors: Individual health factors, the vaccination rate of people in the space, the characteristics of the space, and individuals’ willingness of wearing a mask. For example, if a student has health concerns and thus can’t get vaccinated, the student can join the lesson remotely – in my view, this shouldn’t be viewed as “undermining rights of education” – Because you are still getting an education, and you can’t undermine other people’s freedom of living. Although some students think that there is a difference between physical lessons and remote lessons by thinking that the result of remote lessons isn’t as good as physical lessons; however, compared to undermining people’s freedom of living, joining a remote lesson which may have fewer effects isn’t that important as you are still receiving educations and you are not dying. That said, if schools want to give full rights of joining a physical lesson to unvaccinated students, I suggest this way: Since the environment of the school and the activities of taking a physical lesson don’t impact the action of mask-wearing, and most of the students are vaccinated, the student can go to school as long as he/she is willing to wear a mask all day – Keep in mind that student has to agree to wear a mask all day; otherwise, he/she should stay at home and join the lesson remotely – because he/she can’t undermine other people’s freedom of living. Another example is if a worker has health concerns and thus can’t get vaccinated, in my view, companies have the full right to decide whether to lay off such employees or not. Just as some companies use degrees or some certificates as the hiring requirements of some job roles, companies have full right of thinking vaccine passports as proof that employees who possess such passports can perform jobs “without harming other employees”, and adding vaccine passports as a hiring requirement – not to mention that unlike getting a certificate or a degree, vaccinations against COVID-19 are entirely free including full-paid inoculation leaves in many countries. Just as you have the right to choose not to get a specific certificate but companies have the right to use that certificate as a hiring requirement, you indeed have your right to choose not to get a vaccination, but companies have the right to use a vaccine passport as a hiring requirement. That said, if some companies want to be more kind, I suggest that companies review based on the four criteria I listed earlier. If an employee has health concerns and thus can’t get vaccinated, under the circumstance that the work environment is mask-friendly, the activities to perform specific jobs are also mask-friendly, and most employees are fully vaccinated, such an employee can go to work as long as he/she is willing to wear a mask all day – Keep in mind that employee has to agree to wear a mask all day – because he/she can’t undermine other people’s freedom of living. In contrast, if the workplace or the activities required to perform the job isn’t mask-friendly – for example, activities of performing a specific job require an employee frequently take off their masks or go mask-free, a vaccine passport is the only choice for governments or employers to let the employee stay in the workplace physically.
There are some exceptions, too. For example, government buildings or courtrooms. Let me give you an explanation.
You who are without vaccination may not be able to go to a restaurant. If I were a legislator or the owner of a restaurant, I would just tell you “Go home and cook yourself if you want to eat something”. Your right of living isn’t undermined as you can cook yourself at home to fill up your stomach. However, going to a government building or a courtroom is different. A specific task such as changing the photo of a national ID card, or attending a court because you are a litigant, is like eating to fill up your stomach: It is a must-do for some citizens. But in some cases of going to this type of place, you are required to be physically present in a government building or a courtroom to complete a specific task you want. If you aren’t physically there, you can’t complete that specific task. Therefore, if a government forbid citizens from entering such places, that government undermines the basic civil right of citizens.
Governments may demand citizens complete some specific governmental tasks online if those tasks are already digitalized and can be completed online. However, for some specific tasks which governments demand a citizen who wants to complete must be physically present in a government building, governments should only demand citizens wear masks when entering such buildings, not completely bar citizens from such places.
Just a note because I know some people have this question: Why can’t a restaurant demand masks as a replacement for vaccine passports, too? The answer is – because of the characteristics of the space. You certainly can’t wear a mask to eat. A counter-measure could be as the mayor of Taipei city, Mr. Kuo suggests – unvaccinated people only can use seats in the corner and should use partitions when dining [7]https://new7.storm.mg/article/4162472 . But again, governments or owners of such spaces still have the right to reject you as a customer because they have the right to protect other customers or their workers.
Third, the U.S Supreme court’s concern is not correct. In the event of the U.S Supreme Court blocking Biden’s workplace vaccine mandate, the court’s majority wrote. “That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases [8]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59989476 .” No, air pollution won’t kill people in the short term; COVID-19 will, in the short term. Not any number of communicable diseases won’t kill people; seasonal influenza won’t, but COVID-19 will; otherwise, why previous normal flu didn’t kill as many people as the current COVID-19 has done?
An extended question that may be raised is whether will COVID-19 become seasonal influenza. Yes, it may be. But that depends on how many people are vaccinated and how many changes a new variant has.
One, the reason that many scientists say COVID-19 could become influenza is that they don’t think the virus could be entirely eliminated like measles. According to Dr. Paul Offit, “even if the virus sticks around, new vaccines and new drugs to fight the virus mean it’s unlikely to cause severe illness in the future. Eventually, it will cause fewer deaths than influenza [9]https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-19-seasonal-illness-flu-experts/story?id=75830451 .” So it’s universal vaccination makes it possible that COVID-19 to become influenza.
Two, as I explained in previous paragraphs, vaccines won’t stop the transmission of the virus; vaccines only prevent severe symptoms and death. If you are not wearing a mask, you may get infected and that virus could become a new variant. I emphasized that we might just be lucky to encounter some variants which aren’t fatal. but we may not be always lucky and a new variant that is more fatal and escapes the current vaccines may emerge. If many people in a workplace aren’t vaccinated, more people there will get infected. Thus, isn’t it more likely that a new variant that escapes a current vaccine will emerge in that kind of place? Just as how the Delta variant was first detected in India. On the other hand, if the majority of people in a workplace are vaccinated, only a few people aren’t vaccinated, and you say it’s their right to go to work without vaccination, still NO. As I explained in the second point, it’s shouldn’t be the subject of “undermining human rights”, because you shouldn’t undermine other people’s “freedom of living”. Just as not wearing a mask, by not having vaccinations, you put yourself and other people in danger of getting an infection, you, therefore, undermine other people’s “freedom of living”. The government and companies have the right of thinking vaccine passports as proof that employees who possess such passports can perform jobs “without harming other employees”, or in other words, “without undermining other people’s freedom of living”. Anyway, if you want to be more kind, you can use my suggestion to enact a measure that allows some specific people to go to work without vaccination based on an evolution of the four factors I suggest.
As for the argument of COVID-19 is similar to crimes that happen every day, actually, it’s the U.S’s problem, because not every country has crimes happening every day. From this angle, you can see that the two things may be different in some ways, and YES, they are indeed different in some ways. Why? Because it’s difficult to predict who will commit a crime in when and to prevent it; but, it’s not relatively difficult to prevent transmission of COVID-19: Just get vaccinated and wear a mask.
(2) Misinformation Issue
To counter the misinformation issue, U.S. Surgeon General Murthy’s advisory urges people not to spread questionable information online. Chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, also said “On tobacco packets, they say that tobacco kills. On social media, we need a ‘Surgeon General’s Warning: Misinformation Kills‘ “ [10]https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-surgeon-general-warns-over-covid-19-misinformation-2021-07-15/ . These are good ideas; I also have a suggestion.
During this pandemic, big tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google, all publish many tools to help spread up-to-date COVID-19 information. For example, Facebook and LINE have COVID-19 information centers which show FactCheck and the latest update of COVID-19 in their applications – that is good. People can know right away that there is a place to see whether a rumor of coronavirus is true or not every time they use their Facebook or LINE. However, not every big tech company has put a COVID-19 information center as Facebook or LINE does. Twitter promotes people to check the tag #coronavirus to see the latest update, and the tag #CoronavirusFacts to check the debunked rumors of COVID: The tags are certainly a good way to view all of the relevant posts; nevertheless, not everyone would be aware of using specific tags to check information. It’s better to have a link, which goes to an information page as Facebook does, on the homepage of Twitter or any social media site. In this way, people know right away that there is an information center to check information when they open the app or the website.
In another example, Linkedin also publishes an information page. However, there are two flaws. First, there isn’t a link to that page on the Homepage – at least not in an obvious position as Facebook’s is, because I don’t find it there; I found it through a Google search. Second, The information page only shows the latest update of COVID-19, but there is no FactCheck information on that page. I think Linkedin should add such information.
The last example is Google. Google did a lot of efforts in COVID-19 matters, but I also think it will be better if Google put a link to the information center on the search homepage, just as Facebook does, based on the same reason I explained in the Twitter case.
In my view, publishing FactCheck information on social media sites is as important as the news report nowadays, because people use these social media every day. People don’t specifically go to governments’ websites to check information, but people use social media every day, and when they open the site they frequently go to, if there is a text telling you you can check information and rumors here, people will feel it convenient to check correct information directly there. In the future, when such an outbreak happens again, I hope big tech companies can all put a link to an information page that must include FactCheck on their homepage.
Protests Against Vaccine Mandates In Several Countries
Earlier I talked about the protests against vaccine mandates that also happened in Taiwan following the protests in some western countries and my answer to these protests. Let’s talk about the situation in western countries. I said earlier that the objection against the vaccine mandate in Taiwan mostly came from the Chinese Nationalist Party of Taiwan. In fact, these protests across countries, whether it’s in the West or East, are politized, or unintentionally influenced by politics. One of the protests against vaccine mandates, Freedom Convoy, which is about truck drivers in Canada who were against the vaccine mandates enforced on them and inspired people in several western countries to have similar protests [11]https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/canadas-trucker-protests-what-know-about-freedom-convoy , were initiated and got fundraising at GoFund Me. James Menzies, an editor at TruckerNews, wrote “These weren’t truckers organizing a GoFundMe that at the time of that writing hadn’t yet surpassed $1 million, on the way to $8.5 million just a week later. The principal fundraiser was Tamara Lich, the secretary of the federal separatist Maverick Party in Alberta. Before that role, she was active with other far-right movements such as Wexit Alberta – a party whose founder advocated for Alberta to separate from Canada and join the Trump-led U.S[12]https://www.trucknews.com/blogs/the-so-called-freedom-convoy-was-never-about-truckers-or-border-mandates/ ”. Judging from the above information, there is a big possibility that the protest is politized, or unintentionally influenced by politics.
Did average Canadians support this protest and be against the vaccine mandate? According to Conversation, NO. A study showed that there is broad-based support in Canada for a vaccine mandate for all non-exempt adults over the age of 18, with 70 percent of Canadians indicating that they back the measure to some extent [13]https://theconversation.com/majority-of-canadians-disagree-with-freedom-convoy-on-vaccine-mandates-and-lockdowns-176323 . Nevertheless, since there hasn’t been a good answer to the concerns of the protesters, I think I may need to provide some answers.
The EPOCH Times published an article that was written by an anonymous protestor. This article has detailed 10 reasons expressing the reasons that the protestors are against the vaccine mandate being enforced on truckers, which is a good article for me to just answer these reasons. I summarize 8 out of the 10 here – which I think it’s the most important part, and provide my answer to these concerns.
1. Points 1, 2, 3: No person should be forced to accept medication or other foreign substances into their body that he or she fears will do them harm. This principle is supported by many other factors and principles. The protestor cited principles along with factors that include the concern for the safety of the vaccines.
Answer:
It’s the same concern as one of the concerns in the situation of objections in Taiwan. The concern in Taiwan came from the West. The answer to this concern can follow my earlier answer to such a concern: Same. It’s your freedom to not get vaccinations. But companies have the right of thinking vaccine passports as proof that employees who possess such passports can perform jobs “without harming other employees”, and add vaccine passports as a hiring requirement – not to mention that unlike getting a certificate or a degree, vaccinations against COVID-19 are entirely free including full-paid inoculation leaves in many countries.
2. Point 4: “The statements of public health professionals and the published statistics by public health authorities call into question the thesis that the fully vaccinated are less a source of virus transmission than the unvaccinated—in fact, quite the reverse…Data published by the Ontario Public Health Authority (the only provincial authority to release such information) indicated throughout January 2022 that 75 to 80 percent of the newly infected by COVID (about 98 percent Omicron) were fully vaccinated. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has confirmed in its recent studies that the fully vaccinated are just as likely as the unvaccinated to transmit the virus. These two facts combined undercut the rationale for vaccine mandates, especially when, as in Canada, the number of unvaccinated is less than 10 percent of the population 18 years of age and over”.
Answer:
First, in the data which the statement presents, “75 to 80 percent of the newly infected by COVID (about 98 percent Omicron) were fully vaccinated”, notice there is one word: “Omicron”, it’s a variant. Of course, the vaccine scientists developed before Omicron emerge aren’t able to counter a new variant. The point should be that although the vaccines don’t provide good protection against Omicron, most vaccinated people can counter the original COVID-19 virus, while you, an unvaccinated person, aren’t even able to counter that original virus. And don’t forget the possibility of new variants because you get infected, which I talked a lot about: When you are infected with the original virus, there may be new variants that emerged from your body. By the way, as I explained a lot in Part 1 of this article, isn’t that many of you’s faults of not wearing a mask, so now there are new variants?
Second, “The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has confirmed in its recent studies that the fully vaccinated are just as likely as the unvaccinated to transmit the virus. ” Yes, it’s true. But firstly, this information is a bit of “taking the meaning out of the context”. The CDC’s information is that “New data shows that vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant can carry detectable viral loads similar to those of people who are unvaccinated, though, in the vaccinated, the levels rapidly diminish.” Notice that there is a word “the Delta variant”. So it’s only about the Delta variant, and not includes the original COVID-19 virus. In one CDC’s statement, it also said, “High viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus. [14]https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0730-mmwr-covid-19.html ” Again, the point should be that although the vaccines don’t provide good protection against Delta, most vaccinated people can counter the original COVID-19 virus, while you, an unvaccinated person, aren’t even able to counter that original virus. Secondly, notice the original context, “though, in the vaccinated, the levels rapidly diminish”. According to John Hopkins, while vaccinated people infected with the Delta variant can carry detectable viral loads similar to those of unvaccinated people, breakthrough infections among vaccinated individuals remain uncommon. What does this mean? This means that a vaccinated individual is less likely to get an infection (breakthrough), therefore that individual is less likely to transmit it to other people. In fact, unlike the result found in Canada (the statement that 75 to 80 percent of the newly infected by COVID were fully vaccinated), the result in the U.S is that the majority of new COVID-19 infections in the US are among unvaccinated people, according to John Hopkins [15]https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/new-data-on-covid-19-transmission-by-vaccinated-individuals . Lastly, notice the word “transmit”. Yes, it’s true that a vaccinated person is as likely as an unvaccinated person to transmit the virus, but is it also true that a vaccinated person is as likely as an unvaccinated person to “get infections”? There is a difference. The answer is NO and explained in the earlier point related to John Hopkin’s statement: Again, less breakthrough (infections) is less possibility of transmissions from vaccinated people.
To conclude, the statements while true, aren’t sufficient enough to prove that vaccine is useless. Therefore, the statement isn’t sufficient enough to cancel the vaccine mandate.
3. Point 5: Vaccine mandates discriminate especially against the people who have already contracted COVID-19 and achieved natural immunity……It’s estimated that getting COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination both result in a low risk of another infection with a similar variant for at least six months.
Answer:
First, surely if the level of protection of the natural immunity from a previous infection is equal to or higher than the level of protection of vaccination, governments need to consider taking natural immunity as a type of proof and make the record of a previous infection visible in a vaccine passport. Nonetheless, if such a thing is true, just ask governments to consider making the record of a previous infection visible in a vaccine passport, not ask governments to stop using vaccine passports. Using vaccine passports as proof of vaccination is still important as some perspectives I explained in previous paragraphs.
Second, certainly, it’s true that getting COVID-19 and recovering from it will gain some natural immunity against it – This knowledge has been aware of since the pandemic began. However, according to MAYO Clinic, reinfection is possible while COVID-19 can cause severe medical complications. It also said, “COVID-19 vaccination might offer better protection than getting sick with COVID-19. A recent study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than twice as likely as fully vaccinated people to be reinfected with COVID-19[16]https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-vaccine/art-20484859 . ” Another study which CDC has cited in a statement in 2021, a time earlier than this Freedom Convoy Protest also showed a similar result: Unvaccinated people who had a recent infection were 5 times more likely to have COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people who did not have a prior infection [17]https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1029-Vaccination-Offers-Higher-Protection.html .
4. Point 6: The penalties imposed on the unvaccinated have been excessive to the point of cruelty. People have been fired from their jobs with no opportunity for appeal, no severance, and loss of pension benefits. In addition, the federal government has cruelly deprived them of unemployment insurance benefits.
Answer:
The reason why companies can fire you is answered in Points 1,2 and 3. As for the dissatisfaction with the thing of “no opportunity for appeal, no severance, and loss of pension benefits. In addition, the federal government has cruelly deprived them of unemployment insurance benefits”, I believe that this has violated the labor laws in most of the developed countries. If any company wants to fire you, it has to follow the local labor law and give you severance accordingly. In my view, the government shouldn’t deprive the laborers of “Unemployment insurance benefits”, either; the government should treat such cases as normal dismissal cases. However, These have nothing to do with why the company can’t fire you – the company can fire you, and no vaccine passport is a legitimate and reasonable reason as I explained earlier. The fact that you can’t get your severance or unemployment insurance should be separately discussed, not messed up with the vaccine mandate.
Specifically discussing “loss of pension benefits”, I don’t know it’s the pension benefits that the government provides as long as you are under employment, the pension benefits which some generous big companies proactively provide additionally when there is pension contribution required by law, or it’s Canada’s local labor law indicates that pension benefits should be provided by employers, not by the government which gets money from employers (I am not familiar with Canada labor law and it may be wrong. It’s simply an assumption). Anyway, if the pension benefits come from the government or the employers because the law demands so, it applies to what I said earlier, this has violated the labor law. Of course, you can demand the pension benefit, but it has nothing to do with the vaccine mandate. In contrast, if “the loss of pension benefits” you are talking about is that some generous big companies proactively provides additional pension when there are already basic pension benefits given according to the law, it’s additional pensions that your employer don’t have to give but the employer still gives it additionally; therefore, just as you won’t have a lot of employee benefits after leaving a specific company, of course, you will lose the additional pension benefit after leaving that company – again, because the basic pension is given already, and the one you complained is an additional one.
5. Point 7: No government, federal or provincial, performed a cost-benefit analysis of the measures taken to restrict citizens’ freedoms and to lock down the economy.
Answer:
No, there is indeed no government that did that. In Bill Gate’s book, he also said it’s difficult to measure the benefits of measures of restrictions and lockdown. However, Bill Gates also said in his book, “With the benefit of hindsight, we know that in a lot of places…., the cost of not locking down would likely have been even higher. The economy was bad when businesses shut down, but it could have been even worse if the virus had been allowed to run rampant and kill millions more people than it already had. By saving lives, lockdowns can make it possible to start the economic recovery sooner.” I think this should explain quite well why the restrictions and lockdown are necessary. I want to add, “to die or to earn less money” – which one you choose? Isn’t it obvious? Since it’s very obvious, in my view, it’s a waste of money and time to perform a cost-benefit analysis. If there is a government doing that successfully, the result will be probably similar to Bill Gates and my word.
6. Point 8: According to the Stringency Index developed by Oxford University to measure the harshness of anti-COVID policies imposed by governments, Canada has ranked among the most stringent and heavy-handed jurisdictions in the world.
Answer:
It may be true. But first, the vaccine mandate for COVID-19 is everywhere in the world. Thus, there is also a possibility that the vaccine mandate is not one of the main factors that make Canada the most stringent and heavy-handed jurisdiction in the world. Second, the fact that Canada is strict in terms of controlling COVID-19 doesn’t mean that it must be bad. In fact, the number of COVI9-19 cases in Canada was three times lower than the cases in the U.S, and two-and-a-half times lower than in the U.K [18]https://theconversation.com/how-canada-compares-to-welfare-states-in-covid-19-cases-and-deaths-167742 . Could it be because of Canada’s strict restrictions? I don’t know. It requires a study examining Canada’s actions, but it’s possible. That said, in Taiwan’s case, the case number and mortality rate are low because of Taiwan’s strict restrictions since the beginning of this pandemic; it may also be the case in Canada.
Will Vaccine Produce Worse Variants?
This concern has been answered by the science community, but since some people will have the same question when reading my article if they haven’t read the answer from the science community, I think that just add the answer from the science community to this concern here.
There are concerns about the more people get vaccinated, the more vaccine-escape variants will show up, ultimately undermining vaccine effectiveness [19]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9 . The answer: No. It won’t. According to a study, it states that “Although this is possible, preliminary evidence instead suggests such strategies should slow the rate of viral escape from the vaccine or naturally induced immunity. As long as vaccination provides some protection against escape variants, the corresponding reduction in prevalence and incidence should reduce the rate at which new variants are generated and the speed of adaptation. [20]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9 ” Another article in the Science magazine explains the same reason as well. You may read the article if you are interested.
The countermeasre to prevent more virus mutations, which Science magazine suggests, is to have more people vaccinated. In the article, the author wrote, “one key way to cut down on the odds of a nasty mutant popping up is to just keep the virus from reproducing so much. Cut down on the number of people it infects. When it does infect people, cut down on the amount of time it spends reproducing inside the body. These countermeasures are exactly what a mass vaccination program does. [21]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41577-021-00544-9 “. Taiwan experts have a similar but more detailed view. Discussing the British experts’ concern about the possible acceleration of virus mutations due to mass vaccination, Professor Shi said, “viruses do evolve to a point that becomes resistant to vaccines, so the human’s strategy should be developing multiple virus vaccines and drugs so that viruses do not easily develop resistance.” She further said, “the development of vaccines and drugs should be based on this strategy: Drugs and vaccines will be detrimental to the mutation of the virus and the virus will be eliminated” [22]https://heho.com.tw/archives/185340 , which is similar to what Bill Gates suggests in his book.
By the way, I do need to point out that virus resistance is rare in vaccines (while common in antibiotic drugs) – this article explains why [23]https://theconversation.com/why-resistance-is-common-in-antibiotics-but-rare-in-vaccines-152647 . The part of the British experts’ concern about the possible acceleration of virus mutations due to mass vaccination is not completely correct. What many British experts are concerned about is that viruses will evolve to a point that becomes resistant to vaccines just as Professor Shi said, not the massive vaccination will accelerate the mutation of the virus. The two are actually different things, the argument of vaccination accelerates mutation is already debunked. First, according to DW news, answering the question: “Do vaccines cause virus mutations”, virologist Friedemann Weber from Justus Liebig University in Germany said that it was not the vaccinated who gave rise to new escape mutations and variants, but the unvaccinated: “It was infected people who provided a breeding ground for the new variant and immune escape of the virus.” DW News concludes that in very rare cases, vaccinations can cause mutations to arise and theoretically promote their spread, but it is much more likely that dangerous mutations are created in the body of unvaccinated people, where a virus can spread quickly and unhindered [24]https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-did-covid-vaccines-cause-the-delta-variant/a-58242263 . Second, while Professor Shi’s argument that viruses can evolve to become resistant to vaccines is correct, she left out a very important point: Theoretically, the virus resistance to a vaccine is possible, but it is rare, while the virus resistance to the drug is common [25]https://theconversation.com/why-resistance-is-common-in-antibiotics-but-rare-in-vaccines-152647 [26]https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.2562 . So this argument is correct in the case of drugs, but in the case of vaccines, since viral resistance is rare in the case of vaccines, it is not entirely correct to use this argument in agreement with the UK experts.
Anyway, I don’t find any article that indicates any U.K expert claims that massive vaccination accelerates mutation. The writer of this article might confuse between the evolution of a virus to an extent that becomes resistant to the vaccines and the disinformation that vaccination accelerates mutation, or the writer should provide the source article to prove there is indeed a U.K expert who made such a claim. So I also don’t agree with Professor Shi’s behavior that talking about the evolution of a virus without correcting the reporter’s false belief of “massive vaccination accelerates mutation” when the reporter raised this false belief as a question and wanted her answer. She might think theoretically it’s possible so didn’t correct this concern, but the argument of vaccination accelerates mutation is actually different from what she is concerned about: viruses will evolve to a point that becomes resistant to vaccines, and the above two points are worth mentioning. The claim that vaccination accelerates mutation is incorrect in most ways (only partially correct in terms of the second point: the virus resistance to a vaccine, but still this idea is not entirely correct, as the above explained) and should be corrected by a Taiwanese scientist if this kind of claim occurs again in Taiwan in the future.
I also need to remind you, just as I explained above, the point of what many U.K experts made is that virus will possibly evolve to an extent that becomes resistant to the current vaccine, not the massive vaccination will accelerate the mutation of the virus. Professor Shi is still correct in the argument “There is the possibility that the mutation will become resistant to the current vaccine”. What’s more, there is an additional point except for the above two points explained by scientists: Just as I said in the previous paragraph, the reason that there are breakthrough cases is people are not wearing a mask: Fully vaccinated individuals should also wear masks, and masks are effective in preventing infection if everyone wears a mask (Universal masking: Both receivers and spreaders have to wear masks). So even if the virus creates a mutation inside a body of a fully vaccinated individual, that’s because people are not wearing masks and thus get breakthrough infections, not because of vaccination.
To conclude, the claim that vaccination accelerates mutation which the reporter of this news quote is incorrect in most ways (only partially correct in terms of the virus resistance to a vaccine). That said, vaccination and wearing a mask are still the most effective way to prevent such a mutation as the reason I quote in the last paragraph, and the countermeasure that Professor Shi suggests is still effective: Develop more vaccines that will be detrimental to the mutation of the virus.
A side note from me to this concern is that, isn’t the reason why there is an Omicron variant is that the vaccinated population is low in Africa [27]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/omicron-is-here-a-lack-of-covid-vaccines-is-partly-why1/ ? Michael Head, a scientist, also wrote in Scientific American, “this new variant is a consequence of vaccine inequality in parts of Africa.” According to a study, “Unvaccinated patients exhibit more antigenic mutational variance than vaccinated people. [28]https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.01.21259833v1” Though this study simply focuses on the effectiveness of the vaccine against mutation, I think that the conclusion of this study should be strong proof of why we need to distribute vaccines equally around the world, rather than focusing on protecting people in your country first.
3. Improvement Of Communication To The Public Through Media
Bill Gates wrote in his book, “Neil Ferguson, a highly respected epidemiologist, predicted that there could be more than 500,000 COVID deaths in the U.K. and more than 2 million in the U.S. throughout the pandemic. That caused quite a stir in the press, but few reporters mentioned a key point that Ferguson had been very clear about: The scenario of his that made all the headlines assumed that people wouldn’t change their behavior—that no one would wear masks or shelter in place, for instance—but of course, that wouldn’t be the case in reality. He wanted to show how high the stakes were and demonstrate the value of masks and other interventions, not drive everyone into a panic.” Answering the misconceptions from the public and politicians, Bill Gates said, “All models have limitations, and the report you’re hearing might have left out some important caveats.”
Let’s talk about the misconceptions about Mr.Ferguson’s estimation and the warning further. In an article named So the real scandal is: Why did anyone ever listen to this guy?, pointed out, “In 2005, Ferguson predicted that up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu. In the end, only 282 people died worldwide from the disease between 2003 and 2009. In 2009, a government estimate, based on Ferguson’s advice, said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. In the end, swine flu killed 457 people in the U.K”. The article further said, “I guess I’d have to see the exact quotes that are being referred to in the paragraphs excerpted above. For example, what did Ferguson exactly say when he “predicted that up to 150,000 people could die” of foot-and-mouth disease? Did he say, “I expect it will be under 200 deaths if we cull the herds, but otherwise it could be up to 2000 or more, and worst case it could even be as high as 150,000?” Or did he flat out say, “150,000, baby! Buy your gravestone now while supplies last”? I wanna see the quotes” [29]https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2020/05/08/so-the-real-scandal-is-why-did-anyone-ever-listen-to-this-guy/ . These statements are mostly misconceptions about Mr.Ferguson’s words. Now let me explain why these statements are misconceptions.
First, the above argument is saying that Mr.Ferguson’s point – “If we don’t do something, [a specific number] people will die (Simply put: If we don’t do X, Y will happen)” – is wrong since we did X, we can not validate Y would actually happen when we don’t do X. Explaining why this argument of objecting Mr.Ferguson’s point is wrong is actually more difficult than explaining why the previous point of “This estimation doesn’t happen, thus it’s wrong” is wrong, because this point states that we can’t validate the estimation. However, the argument is still wrong for the same reason as the previous point: The estimation doesn’t happen because we did X to prevent it. One of the replies in the cited article, Daniel Lakeland, also gave an excellent explanation, so I will just quote his reply here: “If I predict that shooting yourself in the leg will cause you to bleed to death… and later you don’t bleed to death… a sensationalist/politicized journalism article could come out saying “Daniel predicts Twain will bleed to death… but he doesn’t! so Daniel has no idea what he’s talking about.” But I didn’t predict “Twain will bleed to death”. I predicted “IF YOU SHOOT YOURSELF then you will bleed to death”. Since you DIDN’T SHOOT YOURSELF my prediction has yet to be tested. ” He said, “Frequently when a modeler creates a “conditional prediction” (under conditions X then Y will happen), it’s taken as an “unconditional” prediction of “Y will happen, panic!”. Later when Y doesn’t happen, it’s taken as evidence that modeler has no idea what he’s talking about. ” He further said that this kind of approach is usually used for defaming modelers for political reasons, to attempt to discredit them. Some of you may think, how about the point that we can’t validate the estimation? Smart if you noticed this argument though excellent but didn’t answer the validation question. True, although Daniel explained quite well, the reality is we still can’t validate the estimation. But think about it, why would we want the bad thing that more people die to happen to validate our estimation? The fact that we can not validate an estimation shouldn’t be the reason we object to a scientist’s conclusion and recommendations. Rather, just as Professor Zeynep Tufekci wrote in The Atlantic, “Epidemiology gives us something more important: agency to identify and calibrate our actions to shape our future. We can do this by pruning catastrophic branches of a tree of possibilities that lies before us……A near miss can make a model look false. But that’s not always what happened. It just means we won. And that’s why we model“. True, whether the estimated number is close to what would happen or not, we should focus on we may save many lives. What’s more, if you want to validate the estimation, I think that’s fine – that’s actually an effort to improve the modeling area. The article written by Professor Zeynep Tufekci pointed out many difficulties when doing modeling. If you can come up with a way to improve one of the difficulties when you pointed out a mistake that occurred from that, that will be a remarkable achievement for both the science community and the world. But before anyone comes up with some good suggestions, the estimated number shouldn’t be the subject you attack, unless the flaw in the modeling is something that shouldn’t happen based on the current scientific development.
Second, concerning the criticism of the estimation based on the worst-case scenario of swine flu in 2009 – the writer of the article said he would like to see whether the exact quote Ferguson said included some conditions such as “if we cull the herds, but otherwise it could be up to 2000 or more”, this criticism is also wrong. Why? Because the estimations indeed convey meanings under certain conditions such as “if we cull the herds, but otherwise it could be up to 2000 or more”. The first estimation: “up to 150 million people could be killed from bird flu”, Mr.Ferguson’s point was making a warning – If we don’t do something, up to 150 million people could die. This warning conveys the meaning of “under certain conditions”. The second estimation is more obvious: It said a “reasonable worst-case scenario” was that the swine flu would lead to 65,000 British deaths. Isn’t this “worst-case scenario” equal to “under certain conditions”?Either the writer of this criticism and readers who believes this criticism have bad reading skills or they intentionally want to confuse people who have bad reading skills.
Except for such misconceptions, the public also has concerned about the consequence of Mr.Ferguson’s warning. The New Stateman cited a similar dispute when interviewing Ferguson to what Bill Gates described, “This now much-contested report is widely believed to have panicked the government into changing its coronavirus strategy. The response to the report hastened the United Kingdom into lockdown and the economy into recession.” In the article, it said, “Ferguson has been viciously denounced and abused, particularly by the libertarian right in the US, which, like Donald Trump, casually dismissed the lethality of the virus and agitated to keep society open.[30]https://www.newstatesman.com/long-reads/2020/07/neil-ferguson-covid-modeller “
Economic loss is indeed a concern. According to STATS, someone in the U.S once called stay-at-home orders an economic death sentence. Judging by these words, the economic recession was probably one of the reasons that many people objected to Ferguson’s estimation. Bill Gates also cites the same question in his book, “It was especially hard to make the case for painful measures like closing businesses and schools…While the costs associated with them were predictable and immediately apparent to anyone who thought about it, the precise benefits—especially given that we were dealing with a new pathogen—were not.” The answer to the concern “How about this alert cause economic recession” is illustrated in Bill Gates’s book. To explain overreacting is a necessary move, he wrote, “One study found that if the government had implemented the very same interventions just two weeks later, the number of deaths would have shot up sevenfold.” In my earlier paragraphs, answering the same concern of economic loss from protesters in Canada, I cited Bill Gates’s words: “By saving lives, lockdowns can make it possible to start the economic recovery sooner”, and the same word from me will be repeated here: This economic-recession result is certainly unfortunate. However, to die or to earn less money – which one do you choose?
Ok. After answering why many of the criticisms toward Mr.Ferguson are wrong, let’s take a look at how the media conveyed Mr.Ferguson’s point and how this can be improved. Take a look at one of the bad examples: Independent U.Kwrote “Around half a million people can be expected to develop long Covid during the current wave of coronavirus, epidemiologist Neil Ferguson has warned [31]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/long-covid-uk-neil-ferguson-b1886076.html .“ This is a bad example because it didn’t write the condition “If we don’t do something, half a million people could die”; it simply said, “half a million people can be expected to die”. Now let’s take a look at a good example to learn how media can improve. I think Washington Post did a good job in reporting what the epidemiologist emphasized. While it firstly said the coronavirus “could” quickly kill hundreds of thousands in both the U.K and the U.S, leaving readers to know it could be a possibility, not a necessity without making sure it’s indeed “not” a necessity, it further pointed out “If Britain and the United States pursued more-ambitious measures to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus, they could reduce mortality by half” in the later paragraph, thus readers can know that the previous understanding of the word “could” is right – It’s indeed a possibility, not a necessity [32]https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-chilling-scientific-paper-helped-upend-us-and-uk-coronavirus-strategies/2020/03/17/aaa84116-6851-11ea-b199-3a9799c54512_story.html .
Read Part 4
Support me with donations and by following me on social media.
Every article I wrote is gone through days of deep research and thinking by me before it is written. If you like my articles, kindly support me, so I can write more quality articles.
( *Note: The unit of donation on the page is U.S dollars. )
If you like this article, please share the article to your social media page, so my article can be accessed to more people.
Please also follow me on social media by clicking the links at below, so my latest articles can be reached out to you.
Follow My Social Media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin
Reproduction of the article without permission is prohibited.References
Chrissy Slora
The articles published in this website are all written by Chrissy Slora. Chrissy Slora aims to make people learn about how the world can be better and provide her intelligent and wise insight by writing about various topics from technology to issues happening in the world. Follow her on social media: Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin