COVID-status certification

 

Question 1

Which of the following best describes the capacity in which you are responding to this call for evidence?

I am an individual.

Question 2

In your view, what are the key considerations, including opportunities and risks, associated with a potential COVID-status certification scheme? We would welcome specific reference to:

a) clinical / medical considerations

·         I quote from the website of the UK Government:

·         “As of 19 March 2020, COVID-19 is no longer considered to be a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) in the UK.”

 

·         The vaccines have not completed Phase 3 trials and are therefore de facto experimental. (see below)

·         The vaccines use unprecedented gene therapy technology for which long-term adverse effects cannot possibly have been assessed.

·         The survival rate of this alleged disease is known to be roughly 99.97%. It is difficult to understand why it is still regarded as a significant health threat.

·         There is considerable concern among the British public that the vaccines are harmful, and considerable evidence of adverse effects.

·         There are many people with justifiable concerns about the vaccines or who may not be able to take them. These include pregnant women, individuals with allergies, people with long-term health issues, or individuals with neurological, psychological, emotional or cognitive disabilities which mean they are unable to make informed choices.

b) legal considerations

You will be aware that the Nuremberg Code 1947, created after World War II with regard to medical experimentation, states that:

 

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.

 

You will be aware that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, of which the UK remains a member, passed Resolution 2361 on 27 January 2021, Paragraph 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 in which it was stated that member stages are urged to:

“Ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves.

Ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated. “

 

You will also be aware that UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) Article 3 states: 

‘1. Human  dignity,  human  rights  and  fundamental freedoms  are  to  be  fully respected. 

2. The  interests  and  welfare  of  the  individual should have  priority over  the  sole interest of science or society.’

You will be aware, or should be aware, that an analogous scheme being rolled out in Israel has apparently been referred to the International Criminal Court of the Hague. Significantly, mainstream media outlets are attempting to cast doubt on the veracity of this, however I see no reason to regard the story as false. That such a discussion exists at all is significant and informative.

There are several articles in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights that may be infringed by this proposed development.

The Equalities Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of disability. There are many categories of this that would render a “vaccination passport” illegal on the grounds that an individual cannot be vaccinated owing to a health condition.

c) operational / delivery considerations

It is worrying that this question is being asked. There is a clear implication contained therein of technological developments being considered to facilitate such a scheme. By their very nature, such technologies constitute a surveillance mechanism with the potential to be extended into every aspect of the daily lives of UK citizens. It also implies an exponential and unrealistic expansion of automated technologies and mechanisms to restrict access to public services and spaces. Such developments may take decades and the implications for these on society are profound.

d) considerations relating to the operation of venues that could use a potential COVID-status certification scheme

The UK Government, the NHS and the developers of the vaccines have stated in public that the vaccines do not prevent contraction or spread of Sars-Cov-2. Therefore in light of this, and the answer to Part C of Question 2, this is an entirely irrelevant question. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the question is intended to encourage businesses to consider policing such a scheme. To do so  could impact negatively on their costs and footfall to an unacceptable degree.

e) considerations relating to the responsibilities or actions of employers under a potential COVID-status certification scheme

The implications of this question are profound. In law, at present, there is no requirement for an employer to demand medical treatment as a condition of employment. The Public Health (Control of Disease Act) 1984 provides that any individual cannot be required to undergo medical treatment, including vaccination. This alone renders employers liable to discrimination claims under the Act and the Equalities Act.

f) ethical considerations

This proposal represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. It also renders every aspect of the lives of UK citizens subject to medical intervention. The implications of this for future developments in medical ethics and for future generations cannot be overstated. It seeks to override the fundamental existential right of anyone to make choices regarding their own bodies and persons. This is the beginning of a medically based apartheid and in considering this, one is reminded of the practices in Germany during the regime of National Socialism, of stamping Jewish passports with a “J”, forcing Jewish people to register their identities as Jewish, and to wear a yellow star identifying themselves as Jewish. This was based on their immutable biological and ethnic origins, and this development would have virtually identical implications for those who have for whatever reason, declined the “vaccines.” It is not too great an exaggeration in my view,  to draw a direct parallel between this development and the beginnings of the Holocaust.

g) equalities considerations

As stated in Question 2(a), a “vaccination passport” is in direct contravention of all previous policies regarding discrimination. It is also in direct contravention of the Equalities Act. There can be no doubt that it violates every principle of a society based on equal treatment for all.

h) privacy considerations

One’s medical status and history is entirely confidential. It is not the business of employers, shopkeepers, police officers or anyone aside from a medical practitioner to enquire into this.

Question 3

Are there any other comments you would like to make to inform the COVID-status certification review?

 

It is highly significant that previous enquiries regarding the worrying possibility of “vaccination passports” met with the response that the UK Government had “no plans” to introduce them. Clearly, this was a disingenuous statement that cannot be regarded as providing confidence for the future. It is worrying that the Prime Minister has been on broadcast media stating quite clearly that he expects these to become a factor of public life, for example to gain access to public houses.

In historic terms, the present Government has already presided over the most illiberal state policies since the time of Cromwell. Further developments of this nature can only exacerbate this now-entrenched historic position. “Vaccination passports” violate every humanitarian, liberal, ethical, theological, legal and social precept on which our society is founded. There is no place in a civilised society for such unmitigated barbarism in the name of an alleged disease which the UK Government has already declared to be “no longer a high consequence infectious disease.”