Thread by @SithaleKgaogelo, Vaccination will not be mandatory, according to Dr Zweli Mkhize. But What's [...]

Vaccination will not be mandatory, according to Dr Zweli Mkhize. But What's The Catch??

[Thread]

The need to control the outbreak of this virus has launched a race to develop and deploy effective vaccines.

Vaccination has always been a very controversial issue in the society.
There are many conspiracies concerning every vaccine, which most likely have to do with safety.

Hence questions have been raised about the safety of these Covid-19 vaccines, like the speed at which they came to the market. Health experts confirmed that the long term effects are not known yet. Meaning we can't fully be clear if they'll be safe for everyone to take.

South Africa will commence the vaccine jab this January, but a rollout plan is yet to be outlined in detail.

Dr Mkhize mentioned that vaccination will not be compulsory, meaning people will freely be exempted if ever they are not comfortable. But what's the catch??

Will your refusal to vaccinate be respected, or you will probably be called a danger to the society and be excluded?

Truth is, there are many people who will opt not to vaccinate due to various reasons, such as religion, health or personal beliefs, but their concern is that if they don't take the vaccine they could lose their jobs and be given limited freedom to travel or socialize.

And I believe that this is precisely the possible catch. Segregation and classism is the possible future.

All industries and businesses want to reopen to save the economy. Employers will want to keep a workplace free from hazards, including the Corona virus.

That is an instance where they might call for mandatory vaccination for a safer workplace. The law demands an employer to keep the workplace safe. But employees also have the right to security and control over their bodies, that's according to Section 12(2) of the Constitution.

This clash of rights is currently being overlooked and ignored by the president and Dr Mkhize, they are trying to calm people by simply stating that "no one will be forced to take the vaccine.."

But the right question is; will employers want to keep employees who opt for vaccination exemption - considering the narrative that they are a danger? Yet to be answered.

The main aim right now is public health or simply reaching herd immunity, that would only be possible if 60-90% of the population is immunized through vaccination.

But regardless of the urgent need to combat the virus, people's insecurities and concerns about these Vaccines should never be overlooked.
There should be a balance between public health and human rights.

What then should the government and employers do about employees that opt for vaccination exemption due to the mentioned reasons? Will they really put the public in danger?

Well I don't think so. If those who refuse the vaccine be mandated to continue with the strict prevention precautions that are currently in place such as social distancing, wearing a mask and continuous hand washing and sanitization I don't think they will be a risk.

Masks and social distancing were proven to be among the most effective Coronaviruses prevention methods by WHO. Hence right now we do not consider a mask wearing person to be putting anyone at risk, although we are not immunized through vaccination.

If you walk into a mall without a mask most people will be uncomfortable, but I have never seen anyone being intimidated by the presence of a person wearing a mask and maintaining social distancing.

Isn't funny that when vaccination begins, people who decide to continue using masks as their Covid-19 prevention measure will be considered high risk? I mean even when they will be walking among vaccine immunized people.

Yes masks are not 100% prevention, but so is the vaccine. Because if vaccines were 100% then vaccinated people would not be worried about being infected by unvaccinated fellows.

whatever vaccination policy should always provide exemption. Unless there is a scientific evidence that proves that people who will not vaccinate would still be a public danger even when they keep prevention measures such as wearing a mask, social distancing and sanitization.

Dismissing people who opt for exemption due to health, religious or personal beliefs will therefore be discrimination against those people.

It is the government's duty to protect its citizens' human rights, except in instances where they are putting other people at risk.
But in this instance, how does wearing a mask and social distancing put people who will probably be immunized at risk?

We are living in democracy. My lawful choices should never be dictated..

Is a no vaccine no job situation not leaving me without a choice and indirectly forcing me to vaccinate?

For democracy' sake, people must only use a prevention measure that they are comfortable with.

That includes vaccination. Masks. Social distancing. Sanitization.

Even the frontline workers who were identified by the Health Minister as the priority group, should not be forced to take a vaccine. It is a foundational principle of medical ethics that consent must be given for any procedure.

If government want more people to take the vaccine then they should rather convince them about the vaccine safety and allow them to take it WILLINGLY. And promise to be liable to pay compensation of employees who show any harmful effects as a direct result of taking the it.

How do you convince people about the safety of the vaccine but not ready to be liable if things do not go right?

Even countries that claim to be faces of democracy are willing to play dictators when comes to vaccines.

The call is simple, DO NOT SEGREGATE people who refuse to vaccinate. Vaccination is not the only prevention measure. If masks were not a prevention measure, all companies would not be operating right now.

Latest Threads Unrolled: