Salma Khalik meant it. She is serious about vaccination. She is ST’s Senior Health Correspondent. Her article poses this tough question: “Is it fair to discriminate against the unvaccinated?”
Well, on that discrimination part, yes. The hand of equity in this case rests on the pragmatic side. And if it is not already crystal clear, they are plainly being discriminated against. We don’t need to pretend they are not. The writing is all over the wall. The facts are this: those not vaccinated cannot “gather in groups of up to five people for activities like dining in and masks-off sports from August 10” - unless, of course, they are pre-tested within 24 hours of the event.
Salma also noted there will be more different treatments between the vaccinated and unvaccinated in October, in favour of the former group in terms of identification, convenience and freedom.
Salma writes: “So yes, they are being discriminated against, even as the choice of being vaccinated remains with them.” Salma then turned the table around to challenge those unvaccinated: “But instead of asking if this is fair to them, we should ask - are these people being fair to the rest of the nation?”
Well, we must know that there are currently three classes of unvaccinated people locally.
The first class are those under 12. There is currently no vaccine designed for them specifically. The second class are those not vaccinated for medical reasons. They have no choice.
But Salma’s focus is not on them. It is the third class of people who, for personal reasons, just refuse to be vaccinated that Salma is singling out. They are the people who put many others at risk, in particular, the 1st and 2nd classes of people.
By their refusal, and when they are infected, the subsidised health costs to treat them will inevitably be higher, since Covid-19 inflicts greater harm to those unvaccinated (For now, I don’t think there is any science that disproves that, mutant strain of Covid that is immune to the vaccination notwithstanding).
So, this 3rd class of unvaccinated people will drain on the nation’s resources for their persistent self-held belief or refusal.
The second consequence as spelt out earlier is that they may spread Covid to the more vulnerable, in particular, those with other serious medical conditions and are of an advanced age.
At this juncture, Salma did clarify that “the vaccine does not give 100 per cent protection.” So, even the vaccinated, which also depends on the types of vaccine administered and their efficacy, will be infected.
But, accordingly to statistics, the infection severity is very much reduced or attentuated. So, by extension of common sense, it costs less to treat them, that is, less number of days hospitalised, for the duly vaccinated.
In fact, I read in ST yesterday that out of 566 infected patients, 8 of them are in serious condition. Out of that 8, 2 of them are vaccinated, and the rest are not. Mind you, as worldwide death toll shows, the infection for the unvaccinated may result in fatality.
As for the vaccinated being carrier and spreading the coronavirus to the vulnerable, that is a possibility too. But I guess that would depend on the interaction between the vaccine and their immune system.
Undeniably, there are still some questions seeking answers even for those duly vaccinated, and these questions extend to the different efficacies of the different brands of vaccination against the different mutant strains of Covid-19, delta or otherwise.
But, if we place our stake on science and the government, which is clearly pro-vaccination, I trust the net benefit for society as a whole outweighs the cost. And isn’t that enough reason to put aside our personal reasons (or reservations) in favour of going for the jabs? Like ABBA croons, take a chance right?
In any event, Salma writes: “People who refuse to vaccinate put themselves at risk. But so long as vaccination is not compulsory, it is their choice to make. But we should not allow that freedom or choice to put others at risk.”
Lesson? Is there any but to go for the jabs? Do it for our nation’s overall health and well being? Stop pussyfooting around then. Well, I have received mine since end May and am certified clear in early June. So, I guess I did my national service?
While I am fully vaccinated, I know of loved ones/friends who are not. Honestly, I cannot fully understand their reservation. But I respect their view. This is not me being liberal or a leftist. I just feel that they need more time.
Of course, in an pandemic, time may be in short supply. Nevertheless, I let them be; to each his/her own. And didn’t our government take the enlightened pathway to make it non-compulsory?
Yet, unfortunately, I feel that society will progressively become divided, not just by income, race and religion, but now, by those vaccinated and those not vaccinated (as if we need another reason to deepen the social wedge, especially during such pandemic-driven, sensitive time, right?).
Going back to the article, at the end of it, this is what Salma wrote with what, to me, seems like an umbrage-like advocacy: -
“In fact, Singapore should go one step further and not provide subsidised treatment, or insurance coverage, for people who can but refuse to get vaccinated, should they become infected with Covid-19. After all, their refusal to vaccinate is tantamount to a self-inflicted injury.”
Despite a reasonably informative article, those were literally her last words on the issue. And they echoed within me: “self-inflicted injury” and “not provide subsided treatment...insurance.” No less strong words I guess, and with accorded respect, words that may just drive the social wedge deeper.
(Sigh) I know the government wants to give her citizenry the benefit of the freedom to choose and express. But at some point (in the future), I feel that we can’t possibly keep up the charade any longer when the walls of free choice are closing in on one group (unvaccinated) and opening up for the other group (vaccinated).
And I also feel that going to the extent of denying subsidised treatment and insurance coverage (if even considered by the government) would be no different from making vaccination mandatory, or it may be an act of policy that wins the battle (outcome) but loses the war (hearts).
Well, I say “yes”, go ahead and balance the right to protect the society for health reasons and the freedom of choice for individuals, but, such balance, once tilted too much on one side, becomes a laughing stock when we still tell ourselves that vaccination is not mandatory.
I also have to say that it may begin as a sincere attempt to balance different rights and that is a noble effort, which the nation can rally behind. But, as conditions change and the cost and benefit do not weigh up anymore, we have to adapt to them and take the least divisive road to draw people to vaccination without dividing them as a consequence.
Mind you, there are many ways to make a horse drink, if pulling him by the reins is self-defeating. You can feed him salt and let natural thirst do your job. But to deny them (or by forfeiture) the essential medical/insurance services, because they need more time to consider, due to the novelty of the situation, may, in my view, defeat the goodwill/trust generated from the initial sincere efforts to balance different interests.
I therefore end by saying that I trust that amongst the unvaccinated (for now), only a small percentage are of the sovereign kind, and for that reason, there is still hope to consider soft power of persuasion instead of hard ones.
And let me just say that this is not about self-inflicted injury. It is about winning hearts, building trust, preserving our unity, and most of all, leaving no one behind. In other words, it is about self-denying choices for the common good of and for all. I earnestly believe we can all get there, in good time, eventually.
No comments:
Post a Comment