• How should Sri Lanka deal with its vocal anti-vaxx or vaccine-hesitant movement?

BY Sumudu Chamara The Covid-19 pandemic is viewed by many as a global crisis that calls for collaborative efforts, who claim that nations need to stick with each other to put an end to the pandemic, and global vaccination is considered the best available solution to achieve it. However, not everyone shares the same opinion about vaccination, and some, who do not believe in the effectiveness and long-term results of vaccination and/or the manner in which vaccination is being conducted, beg to differ. There are two groups, namely, “anti-vaxxers” who claim vaccination is not the best solution against Covid-19 and the group that opposes the importance and necessity assigned to vaccines and in turn emphasises the right to accept or refuse vaccines. Sri Lanka too has paid attention to these groups, and the health authorities have hinted at plans and talks to create an environment where those refusing vaccines do not pose a risk to others.  Government’s, health authorities stance Considering the nature of this situation, the Government noted that it was contemplating whether to allow businesses frequented by the public, such as supermarkets, to conduct business as usual, if their employees have chosen to refrain from getting vaccinated, despite being eligible for it. This was announced by Health Minister Keheliya Rambukwella, who added that once all eligible persons are fully vaccinated, the Government would pay attention to taking concrete measures in that regard, and that similar measures taken by other countries would be taken into account. “This sort of measure would be especially necessary for certain public places, for example, supermarkets. If supermarket employees refuse to get the vaccine, then while that is their right, it poses a serious threat to the public as supermarkets are places the public commonly use. In such a scenario, the Government may have to consider whether those businesses can continue to function as usual, since they pose a heavy threat to the public. Thus, we are contemplating all of these factors at the moment,” Rambukwella said earlier this week. This statement came after the health authorities’ decision to implement a programme requiring the fully vaccinated to present proof of vaccination, or a vaccination card, to enter certain public places, in order to ensure that the unvaccinated do not pose a threat to others – the vaccinated and those who refrained from getting vaccinated due to medical and health reasons. This decision and plan became a topic of discussion following National Operations Centre for the Prevention of the Covid-19 Outbreak (NOCPCO) Head and Army Commander Gen. Shavendra Silva and Health Ministry authorities announcing last month that such proof of vaccination would be required from those above the age of 30 years with effect from 15 September. However, the authorities later decided to put this decision on hold until all eligible persons above that age are vaccinated. The authorities stance is, even though any person has the right to refuse to get vaccinated, they do not have a right to place anybody else at risk of Covid-19. In fact, during the past few months, the health authorities had reiterated on several occasions that they have no plans to make vaccination mandatory. Opposition against vaccination/vaccination policies In Sri Lanka too, various persons and groups have raised concerns regarding and/or against vaccination and promoting vaccination as a necessity. Last month, the Sinhala Ravaya Party filed a fundamental rights (FR) petition in the Supreme Court against the vaccination drive and making vaccination cards mandatory to enter public places, marking the first announcement of plans to introduce such regulations. They stressed that the people have a right to adopt an arbitrary method of survival against Covid-19, and also a right to make their own decisions on whether to agree or refuse to get vaccinated.  Adding that this matter is about the people’s fundamental rights and that certain government decisions regarding vaccinating the citizens violate those rights, they stated: “A person who does not have any disease or does not take any medicine should not be vaccinated by force or by intimidation, such as by informing them that they would be deprived of the opportunities they rightfully deserve in the society, in the event they decide to refuse to get vaccinated.”  The Sinhala Ravaya Party also noted that vaccination should be done in a way that is acceptable to society; society must be made aware of vaccination and anyone should have the right to either accept or refuse it. In the event a person decides to refuse it, they said that such people should have the freedom to opt for a treatment of their choice, and that this right must be recognised by the Government as it is their duty and responsibility to do so. On 16 August, that Party lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL), alleging that human rights are being violated owing to the manner in which the ongoing vaccination drive is being conducted. Their stance was that the country should opt for a vaccination drive in the event there is no alternative. They also expressed concerns about the fact that the vaccines have not been subjected to enough research to identify their side effects, and that the public should therefore have the right to choose whether they want to get vaccinated.  Attempts to contact the Sinhala Ravaya Party to query whether any further steps with regard to the Government’s vaccination policies are being taken, proved futile.  To learn more about the standpoint of those opposing vaccination, or the vaccination policies that are currently in place, The Morning spoke to social and medical anthropologist Dr. Darini Rajasingham-Senanayake, who has been vocal about the matter. She raised concerns regarding the necessity of administering a vaccine, adding that a person infected with the original Covid-19 variant does not need to be vaccinated to recover as it is less aggressive, and that the virus that has caused the prevailing pandemic, however, requires vaccination, as it is created and enhanced by world powers. She added that the need for vaccination is being promoted and encouraged unnecessarily, and that big pharmaceutical industries are attempting to sell vaccines and that powerful countries are most likely behind it. Adding that the said parties first create an issue, in order to then sell the solution they need the world to accept, she said: “This Covid-19 pandemic and the increased emphasis on vaccination are a complete scam.” Speaking of the vaccination drive, she added: “Vaccination as well as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are becoming essential in Sri Lanka and in many other countries, as certain parties including pharmaceutical companies and global health organisations, through governments, are attempting to sell vaccines, and the result is people tending to get a vaccine they hardly need. In addition to the business of selling vaccines and test kits, there are also matters relating to geopolitics behind the pandemic, to which Sri Lanka is succumbing. This Covid-19 pandemic is actually a psychological operation to create fear, and make money by vaccinating people.” With regard to the promotion of vaccines, she added: “This is basically coercion, but they say that it is a free choice. When it comes to children especially, they are not able to give informed consent. Children are at a very low risk of contracting Covid-19, and they are being vaccinated as they might present a threat to the elderly. Children should never be vaccinated to protect adults, and it is a complete violation of any medical ethics.” She alleged that global health organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) are not looking into more effective and less harmful alternative medicines of which some have existed and have been in use for years, to manage the prevailing global health crisis, and instead, have resorted to promoting vaccines of which the long-term health effects remain rather unknown. “Many other countries with lower vaccination rates are not imposing and continuing lockdowns. If Sri Lanka’s vaccination rate is 50%, as claimed by the authorities, which is relatively a higher number, why are we still under lockdown?,” Dr. Rajasingham-Senanayake questioned. Speaking further, she emphasised on the people’s right to know the true effects including long-term effects and what the vaccines are made of, and alleged that the vaccines that are currently in use to manage Covid-19 have not been tested enough for the people to believe that it is safe and effective. “Normally, to trial and fully test a vaccine, it takes between seven to 13 years, because, essentially, vaccines would be in your body for the rest of your life,” according to Dr. Rajasingham-Senanayake. She also questioned the state of emergency, adding that there is no data in Sri Lanka or in the global south to suggest the need for an emergency. She alleged that under the guise of an emergency situation, people are being compelled to get vaccinated. Anti-vaxxers movement in the world With the commencement of worldwide vaccination, a movement of those opposing vaccination – in this case, those opposing vaccination against Covid-19 – also started. Even though the approach of such groups based in Sri Lanka who oppose vaccination is rather diplomatic and based on legal action, the situation in other countries relied largely on protests and social media movements. However, the reasons that prompted their actions have been more or less similar to those pointed out by Sri Lankan groups. After the commencement of the global vaccination drive, protests against stern vaccination policies with regard to Covid-19 have been held in many countries including the US, the UK, France, Australia, Italy, Greece, Russia, and Canada.    According to a report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), “activists – those opposing vaccination in other countries – are attempting to establish elements of a parallel culture as an alternative to a vaccinated society”, and they see the prevailing pandemic situation as a “great turning point” in the world. However, in contrast to the opposition against the Government’s vaccination policies raised by Sri Lanka-based groups, one major idea similar groups in other countries oppose is what they believe to be an ongoing “medical apartheid”. The anti-vaccine movement in several countries have gone on to consider extreme and newer measures to organise and expand. Foreign media report that applications or apps such as “Unjected” – created by anti-vaccine activists exclusively for dating, housing, and business opportunity needs of the unvaccinated – are becoming famous, noting that the app has been downloaded by people from around 80 countries. Media reports also claim that they are growing and organising at a great speed, despite resistance from governments, online platforms, businesses, and activists supporting vaccination. However, most of these groups are not new, even though their fight against vaccination against Covid-19 is still in its initial stage. Anti-vaccine or vaccine-hesitancy groups have existed for more than a century, arguing about the alleged side effects and contents of various vaccines and their bodily autonomy to accept or refuse vaccines, and these movements have embraced those opposing Covid-19 vaccines. In this context, some foreign critics claim that the movement against Covid-19 vaccines is not as big and strong as it appears, and that it is more or less a part of the general anti-vaccines movement that already existed. Medical community’s response Even though some claims made by those opposing vaccination, especially vaccination against Covid-19, remain unaddressed, medical experts have countered a large number of reasons cited by the former groups advocating against vaccines. In response to the anti-vaxxers claims, medical experts as well as health organisations such as the WHO have stated that the Covid-19 vaccines were approved to be used after trials and tests which have been satisfactory. They also claim that even though Covid-19 vaccines were not tested for a long period of time as the pandemic situation called for urgent action, further studies are being conducted. Moreover, they claim that vaccines do not contain substances that can cause an immediate or a severe threat to humans, and that most of the anti-vaxxers’ claims, that the vaccines include harmful substances, have not been supported by scientific evidence. With regard to anti-vaxxers’ concerns that Covid-19 vaccines are ineffective, as even the vaccinated can contract the virus and can die of complications, medical experts say that anti-vaxxers should take into account the medical situation of each person separately, noting that such blanket statements are unacceptable. They claim that there is always marginal vaccine ineffectiveness, adding, however, that it is very low for Covid-19 vaccines. They also emphasise that a vaccine is never 100% effective, and that therefore the same response is applicable to anti-vaxxers’ doubts about the vaccinated being able to transmit the virus despite being vaccinated. They maintain that the vaccine cannot prevent the transmission of the virus 100%, and that usually it is around 60-80%.  With regard to the belief that having a healthy lifestyle is sufficient to fight Covid-19, experts say that even if it was true in some situations, relying merely on the immune system is a risk that is not advisable, as there is no way to predict or measure the immune system’s strength. However, medical experts claim that there is no sufficient evidence to discuss allegations such as Covid-19 vaccination being a massive global conspiracy or a cold war aimed at gaining military and economic power, and that vaccination could cause cancers in the long run. Reaching completely unanimous decisions is a phenomenon we seldom observe, and allowing each and every individual to have their own say despite being different, is a quality of democracy. In this regard, the Government not forcing people to get vaccinated, and instead planning to let them stick to their decision while ensuring others’ safety, is a commendable act. However, decisions should be based on facts and opinions supported by facts, and irrespective of everyone’s right to make decisions for themselves, they have a responsibility to ensure that their decisions do not affect the others around them.