I replied at some length this morning . . .
Question 1 [capacity in which one responds]:
I am an employee of a Higher Education Institution and co-Chair of the organisationâs Disability Staff Network. Until recently I was also Branch Secretary of one of the largest trade unions in the UK (the second largest, by member numbers, of the four that the HEI recognises). However, I am writing in my individual capacity.
Q2 [âŚ]:
a) I claim no authority in the area of clinical or medical practice but the total reversal of normal practice in the last 12-15 months has been egregious and ought not to be sustained. An inability to consult professionals, except by way of mediated communications such as Zoom, may ostensibly have meant services could be prioritised in the pandemic, but has in reality rationed resources without sound justification. This needs to stop.
I am not convinced that gatekeeping by way of COVID-status certification is either useful or fair. The medications being tested by BioNTech, Pfizer, and others do not appear to âlower [the] risk of getting sickâŚâ (in your own words).
b) I have some legal training, mainly in company law and law of contract, and considerable experience of areas such as welfare rights and employment legislation. There is no precedent for, and no justification for, citizens having to âproveâ their health status in any situation other than, possibly, areas where sterile environments are essential. Certain laboratories or surgical/operating âtheatresâ, for example. In such environments, existing protective clothing/equipment has always sufficed. It will continue to do so.
Professionals who work in such environments should be trusted to refrain from entering them if in their personal assessment they might pose any biosecurity âthreatâ (a term I use reluctantly). This has always been the case and need not change now. As the government is perfectly well aware these types of operating environments have continued to operate during 2020-2021 with no need for âcertificationâ.
Fundamentally, what you are proposing is a framework in which citizens are deemed âdangerousâ unless they can verify otherwise. While this is bad enough, the fact that the vaccines, so-called, do not confer genuine immunity, do not prevent transmission, and are only effective, apparently, in supressing symptoms, makes certification a misleading token for âlack of threatâ. No premises should be permitted to exclude service users on the basis of their not proffering this dubious evidence of lesser risk.
c) In terms of operational / delivery considerations, this would place additional burdens upon businesses. There could be an expectation that a physical barrier (or at least a sentinel of some kind) would prevent access until certification is checked. Whether through personal or algorithmic means, this interferes with the right of business operators to run their enterprises as they see fit.
Customers who feel they are placed at risk because of a âlackâ of precautions would be free to use an alternative service. Customers who are not offered that choice, if certification were a legal requirement, would be oppressively framed as second-class persons. This is not acceptable.
Would you prefer that shebeens are established for people who wish to drink alcohol without the obligation of showing certification? I suspect that is what you will get. Perhaps youâd care to review some Hogarthian images from less enlightened times and consider the desirability of our time-shifting back to these dark days.
d) In terms of considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential COVID-status certification scheme my previous answers apply and I have nothing to add.
e) Considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential COVID-status certification scheme are an area of major concern. The âno jab no jobâ rhetoric that has been permitted to circulate in common parlance is quite clearly a calculated propagandistic gambit.
No employer should be obliged to enforce such arrangements under the spurious guise of Health and Safety (H&S). There is considerable irony in this possible scenario because H&S legislation has been consistently eroded in this country for many years.
The choice as to whether to elect to receive a medication (or be subjected to a medical test) is a personal right. My employer has no right to insist that I take mood-altering chemicals in order to reduce the risk of an autistic meltdown, for example, but I elect to do so. Such situations are distressing and unpleasant.
Similarly, a sibling of mine takes meds to reduce the risk of an epileptic episode. No reasonable employer would insist that a worker reduce the risk customers/colleagues becoming distressed by the prospect of an individual in epileptic âfitâ.
If any employee comes to work obviously unwell a decent employer would suggest, and possibly feel entitled to insist, that they go home and work there if possible (or to rest/take sick leave). If I come to work without certifying that I am healthy, whether by way of a lateral flow test or by way of a certificate, they should not be entitled to lock me out of the premises.
It is that simple.
f) All of the comments I have made so far have obvious ethical considerations so I shall not add any further comments in this section.
g) Equalities considerations would include the self-evident fact that medications carry risks and those risks may be amplified in the case of certain chronic illnesses/disabilities. It is impossible to countenance how, for example, severely mentally incapacitated citizens could give genuinely informed consent to the administration of medication.
It has been hypothesised that citizens who identify as BAME may have a higher vulnerability to certain illnesses. I cannot recall, however, any suggestion that any citizen should be compulsorily screened for sickle cell anaemia, for example.
The unproven effects that medications may have on pregnant women, another protected category, could logically mean that they are deemed âuncertificatedâ, risky, unemployable. This is discriminatory.
I am scratching the surface here, and could proffer many more examples, but believe that the gist of my objections is very clear.
h) Privacy considerations must be high on the list of factors mitigating against a COVID-status certification scheme. It will be abundantly obvious if an individual is refused access to premises by way of human and/or algorithmic means. I can easily visualise an apparatus similar to the tag detector scanners that loudly alert shop management to potential incidents of shoplifting. The humiliation of being accosted when an employee has neglected to remove such a tag is a powerful disincentive against entering such premises. One feels shamed as a criminal. How much more humiliating to feel shamed as a biohazardâŚ.
I have recent lived experience, for example, of being shamed for ânot queuing correctlyâ by one of the large supermarket chainsâŚ. An autistic meltdown was the result, highly distressing, embarrassing, and the effects last days. I am someone not very attuned to social cues, had avoided these premises since July 2020 because of mask mandates, and was merely following the example of the person in front of me. She was not rebuked. This recent incident was enough to persuade me to never enter that shop again. The employees who felt entitled to publicly rebuke me, and the customer who believed he was entitled to join in, were enabled by the dystopian rules that have been instituted in the UK since 2020. Empowering such miniature demagogues with a whole set of new ârulesâ is unconscionable.
Q3 [âŚany other commentsâŚ]:
I will conclude by emphasising that COVID-status certification is a reprehensible idea. It will divide society into âsafeâ citizens and potentially âunsafeâ citizens with the latter framed as of lesser worth.
I lived for some years in the Republic of South Africa. As youâll be perfectly well aware a racial classification system was used for a very long time to segregate people, to shape their life chances, to frame some people as of (considerably) lower worth, and so on.
Creating a bio-apartheid framework is vile. You should roll back all existing âemergencyâ legislation. It has had quite clearly disastrous and inhumane consequences. Do not compound this grave misjudgement with yet further unjust and unnecessary rules.
I will end on a more favourable note: it is good to see that at least an alternative (testing) may be offered to vaccination as guarantor of âacceptableâ COVID-status certification. They are invidious choices though.
One assumes a framework of more enduring certification for the vaccinated, coupled with shorter-term certification for those subjected to tests, might be under consideration. It strikes me as being the lesser of two evils from a menu with just two options.
COVID-status certification should not be introduced. COVID-status certification based solely on vaccination data should emphatically not be introduced.
I guess my concluding comments could be reframed like this: if being unemployed and destitute is one choice, and daily lateral flow tests are the other choice, I would under duress opt for the latter. With deep deep resentment and only as a last resort. So-called vaccine is not gonna happen. Simples, as that dratted meerkat says.
