We discussed this briefly in my other piece this morning, but it deserves a story of its own. There are two points here: The first is that it demonstrates that even the King himself is not immune to political pressure. The second, obviously, is the question of how long this discrimination on the basis of vaccination status is going to endure, and whether the Government intends it to be permanent. But first, the relevant quotes:
Public health officials say they do not have concerns about large-scale outdoors events going ahead, provided they are confined to vaccinated people.
Asked whether an outdoor event such as Electric Picnic could go ahead if it was only for vaccinated people, chief medical officer Dr Tony Holohan said he wouldn’t have concerns from a public health point of view in such a situation.
The risk of vaccinated people transmitting the disease was “very, very small”, he pointed out, adding: “We wouldn’t have concerns about that if it could be achieved.”
There can be very little doubt that Holohan’s shift in position here is a direct result of public and political pressure. Politicians have been under immense pressure from musicians, artists, and others in that sector recently, all making the obviously correct point that it is absurd to pretend that Croke Park is a safe place in which to watch football, but turns into a viral swamp if the players are replaced on the pitch by musicians. Of course, it may prove to be very difficult to organise an event like the Electric Picnic at this late stage. It had previously been cancelled, and it was due to take place exactly a month from today. If they can take Holohan at his word and get it back up and running, then fair play to them: But it will require a herculean effort. Dr. Holohan, of course, gets the credit for being benign enough to permit it, when he should be taking the blame for the uncertainty that caused it to be cancelled in the first place.
After all, if it is safe for vaccinated people now, today, why was it not safe for vaccinated people a month, or six weeks ago, when the Government announced the vaccine passports? Has the vaccine become more effective? Holohan says, in the quote above, that the risk of transmitting covid between vaccinated people is “very, very, small”. But, if that is true now, then it was true weeks ago, too. The date for the Picnic has never changed. Why, then, the need for all the confusion and uncertainty?
This is not Government by science. It is Government by whim.
And on that point, readers may wish to ask a very fair question: Are these vaccine passports temporary, or permanent?
Despite what anybody might claim to the contrary, the vaccine passports clearly are intended to coerce, as much, or more, as they are intended to protect. If you’re 18 years of age and want to go to the Electric Picnic, they are intended to be a Government hoop through which you must jump. The theory being that forcing people to become vaccinated is enough of a “common good” to justify what is a clear and obvious breach of people’s human right to medical self-determination.
But for how long must they endure? Is it really the Government’s intention to create a permanent class of semi-citizens, permitted to exist within our borders, but not to socialise or mingle with others, like lepers? What, for example, of those who have already had Covid, and, in actual fact, have stronger immunity (and probably, more enduring immunity) than those of us, like me, with a vaccine? Are we really going to persist with the absurd policy that someone with potentially waning immunity acquired via a vaccine months ago, has more rights than somebody who has recently recovered from Covid themselves?
How does it end? You can be assured that there will be voices – loud voices – clamouring for it to remain in place endlessly, just as there are loud voices who seem to prefer endless lockdown. But for all the issues with lockdown, it, at least in theory, affects everybody broadly equally. The vaccine passports, by contrast, deliberately target a minority for a form of oppression.
A form of oppression, by the way, with a very limited basis in science. If the objective is to “stop the spread” and “reduce deaths and hospitalisations”, 5% of unvaccinated people mingling with the rest of us makes very little difference.
But those are awkward questions, and, so, they will not be asked. As long as journalists get to take selfies at the Electric Picnic and tweet about hashtag normality, we’ll all sail along and not worry too much about it.