
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleLifestyle + Health
BY Simon Longstaff 16 AUG 2021
One of the most significant ethical issues to confront the community in the current phase of the COVID-19 pandemic concerns the extent to which people should be required to achieve full vaccination.
The debate mirrors earlier discussions about where to set the balance between public safety and personal liberty. In the wake of events such as the 9/11 terrorist attack or the Bali bombing, successive governments introduced legislation to curb civil liberties that, in some cases, had been fought for centuries ago – with the shedding of much blood in the name of liberty.
However, there was scarcely a whimper of protest from conservatives at that time, or since. Former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, spoke for many government leaders when, in February of 2015, he said that, “There is no greater responsibility – on me – on the government – than keeping you safe”.
That formula has been invoked time and time again in response to criticism from those who have questioned the erosion of civil liberties. Once again, Tony Abbott outlined the rationale for preferring public safety over personal liberty, noting that one or two people could pose a threat to the community. In the same national security statement quoted above, Mr Abbott when on to say, “But frankly, I’d rather lose a case, than lose a life.”
For the most part, the community has accepted this set of prescriptions. It is against this background that one needs to understand the approach of government to the menace posed by COVID – where lives can be threatened by the actions of just one or two individuals – including those who are free from malicious intent.
As noted above, I cannot think of single conservative commentator who took Mr Abbott (or other leaders) to task for their preference of public safety over personal liberty. Yet, many of these same commentators are lining up to condemn politicians who take an identical stance in response to the proportionately greater risk to life posed by COVID-19. In doing so, some have decided to oppose a range of government measures that they think identify as violating individual liberties – ranging from ‘lockdowns’ to vaccination.
Unhelpfully, the debate has been skewed by the failure to make a clear distinction between different types of restriction.
As far as I know, there has been no serious proposal – from government or the private sector – for ‘compulsory vaccinations’. Yet, this ‘red herring’ is causing widespread debate and a fair measure of concern.
So, how should we think about the issue of vaccinations?
It seems to me that the greatest source of confusion (and concern) lies in the failure to distinguish between three types of requirement: compulsory, optional and conditional.
Compulsory requirements are enforced – and those that contravene are subject to punishment. There are very few compulsory requirements in liberal democracies. Examples in Australia include: the requirement for children to be educated (e.g. attend school); and the requirement that adult citizens attend voting places and receive a ballot paper (whether they cast a valid vote or not is up to them). Most recently, we have had genuinely compulsory ‘lockdowns’. If you fail to abide by the rules, then you are subject to formal punishment by the state.
Optional requirements leave each person to decide whether or not to engage in the specified activity – without consequence. As such, they are generally held to be uncontroversial.
Conditional requirements are far more common. Typically, they are in the form of: ‘if … then’. For example, ‘if you wish to drive a car … then you must be licensed to do so’. Or, ‘if you wish to enter this mine … then you must wear safety equipment’. As will be evident, no person is required to drive a car or enter a mine site. To do so is a matter of choice. In this lies the principal difference between ‘conditional’ and ‘compulsory’ requirements.
I have not really heard anyone make the case for ‘compulsory’ vaccination. Rather, there are arguments being made in favour of vaccination as a ‘conditional requirement’. So, how might such a requirement be justified?
First, it is easy to justify such a requirement in order to protect the health and safety of a community or a workplace. This was the line of argument that Peter Singer attributed to John Stuart Mill, in his recent opinion piece in The Sydney Morning Herald. Second, one can also justify a conditional requirement as a precondition for being able to perform a function. Third, one can set a condition that requires a person not to render themselves either unsafe or unable to perform their role. For example, a mining company might require an employee to wear protective clothing or sunscreen. This is not solely to keep the employee safe. It also ensures that the person remains fit (physically able) to perform their role, free from injury.
The same thinking can also be extended to the idea that an employee should remain fit (physically able) to perform their role free from disease. As noted above, this conditional requirement could be seen as being directed towards the welfare of the employee. Or it could be a requirement for the benefit of the employer.
In either case, no person is compelled to work under such conditions. If they are not prepared to accept the condition, then they may choose not to work for an employer imposing such a requirement. As noted above, this is common and uncontroversial in many, many cases.
A final note: nothing here has any implications for what a person should or should not believe. For example, a person may have a ‘magical belief’ that they are protected from the risk of injury or disease, yet still be required to wear safety equipment. A person may believe that COVID-19 is a ‘hoax’ yet still have to meet the conditional requirement that they be vaccinated.
Governments, companies, etc. should not be in the business of imposing beliefs on others. They can seek to persuade – but nothing more. However, they have every right to set conditions on behaviour and then leave it to people to choose whether or not to meet the conditional requirements that have been set.
Of course, this leaves open one final possibility – that a person may be unable to meet the condition through no fault of their own. For example, some people cannot operate the pedals on a car – yet may still wish to drive. The fact that they cannot operate an unmodified vehicle is not a matter of choice (or an absence of will) – it is a physical impossibility. In such cases, society might try to develop mechanisms (e.g. modified control systems) to offset the limitations. However, this will not always be possible.
Should an employer set vaccination as a condition of employment?
The decision to undertake any kind of medical procedure is a serious one.
Normally, this would be a private matter – especially when it relates to the health of an individual. However, there are multiple precedents for setting conditional requirements of a kind that involve medical procedures, including vaccination. For example, as things stand, one cannot travel to certain countries without vaccination (yellow fever). But to what extent, if any, might the context of employment render a different ethical outcome? For example, should employers apply a ‘test of relevance’ (e.g. different requirements for people working in aged care/disability sectors than, say, for construction workers)?
Some might argue that there is room for conscientious objection – but it has always been a mark of genuine cases, of conscientious objection, that people be prepared to accept the consequences of acting in conformance with their conscience. Also, the duty is to act on a well-informed conscience. That is, one cannot claim the protections or validations of conscience when based in proven error (e.g. in the belief that vaccines do not work, that they contain micro-chips, etc.).
Thus, when it comes to balancing safety vs freedom it should be recognised that both values are of importance. However, good health is an enabler of freedom. Therefore, freedom from the risk of infection (e.g. amongst employees) should be given priority. This would allow for the establishment of ‘conditional requirements’ (such as in the case of a vaccine passport). But these requirements should be structured as the minimum necessary to secure safety. For example, if the job can be done while working from home, then that should be allowed amongst those who choose not to be vaccinated. On the other hand, if the job requires contact with others (if this is strictly necessary), then a refusal to be vaccinated would be equivalent to refusing to take an anti-doping blood test (in elite sports) or to wear safety equipment in a mine.
What questions should employers consider about vaccination?
- Does vaccination significantly reduce the risk of transmission to others? If so, does the employer have a duty to limit the risk of infection faced by its employees (as a whole), customers, etc.?
- Does COVID present a risk that an infected employee will be unable to perform their duties? If so, is the risk sufficient to justify a conditional requirement that the employee protect themselves from this harm?
- What exceptions (if any) can be made for people who are unable to meet the conditional requirement (e.g. medically unfit to be vaccinated)? To what extent can the person’s work practices be managed to take account of this limitation (e.g. special facilities, use of additional PPE, etc.) so as to balance the interests of the individual and the wider group?
Conditional requirements are an everyday occurrence. They range from clothing requirements (e.g. to enter certain places), to the possession of licences, to the need for vaccinations when travelling to certain countries overseas. Some of these requirements are established to reflect cultural preferences, or as indicators of respect for particular institutions or places or as being necessary to realise values like those of ‘safety’, ‘efficiency’, etc.
In the end, when values compete – as in the case of ‘public safety’ vs ‘personal liberty’ the best approach is to seek to make every effort to minimise the damage to one value to the greatest extent possible while realising the other. It’s an approach that I think we failed to heed when it came to our nation’s response to the threat posed by terrorism – sowing the seeds that we seem to be harvesting today.
Perhaps this time round, we can do better.
As a small beginning, I wonder if we can at least drop the reference to so-called ‘compulsory’ vaccinations and instead focus on what might count as a reasonable, conditional requirement.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBeing Human
Free speech has failed us
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law
VideoBig Thinkers + Explainers
Stan Grant: racism and the Australian dream

BY Simon Longstaff
After studying law in Sydney and teaching in Tasmania, Simon pursued postgraduate studies in philosophy as a Member of Magdalene College, Cambridge. In 1991, Simon commenced his work as the first Executive Director of The Ethics Centre. In 2013, he was made an officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for “distinguished service to the community through the promotion of ethical standards in governance and business, to improving corporate responsibility, and to philosophy.”
60 Comments
Hi Damien, due to the high volume of spam we receive in comments, we have to moderate and manually approve them.
Thanks,
TEC team
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this issue.
A strong focus of the article is the power of employers over employees to threaten their employment by virtue of conditional vaccination status. Employment is not undertaken by everyone in society and this article fails to speak to the broader concerns of all members of society, not surprisingly the most vulnerable, disenfranchised and marginalised. It actually appears to be speaking on behalf of employers, which rightly brings into question the funding and purpose of the organisation. Even in non-profits, consultation pays the bills and one must feather their nest.
Employment is a contract that is entered into by two different but equal parties, reflected in the role of rights and responsibilities of each. “Choice” to accept the conditions of employment may speak to future employment contracts but what about existing contracts? Surely they can’t all be amended to suit the employer? To suggest employees have the right to choose to leave their employer of 10 years and render themselves unemployed due to the fact that an employer has sought to take on the responsibility of a public health issue, reflected in a “vaccination condition”, is absolutely extraordinary and completely insensitive to the demands of raising a family in a modern society. Unless of course it is viewed solely from the perspective of the employer, then I see where you are coming from. Why not conduct a poll with those waiting outside a Centrelink office? It might bring the issue closer to home when you stand in the line for an hour and see what it is really like, instead of imagining from a distance.
Perhaps an ethical consideration may be to ask if the course of action (employment conditional on vaccination status) is proportionate with the outcome? What other protective factors have been considered and ruled out? Are they all achieving equal results? Are they all causing equal consequences, intentional or unintentional? Does vaccination replace the other protective factors, like PPE, social distancing, hand sanitisation etc? Vaccination is one protective factor and it is not 100% effective. I appreciate the notion of herd immunity, but please not at the expense of herd mentality.
“It seems to me that the greatest source of confusion (and concern) lies in the failure to distinguish between three types of requirement: compulsory, optional and conditional” – I feel you’ve only confused things further here by presenting a black and white issue. Nuffield Bioethics Council offer the intervention ladder which very simply explains the various levels of choice and how these are influenced:
– Eliminate choice
– Restrict choice
– Guide choice by disincentives
– Guide choice by incentives
– Guide choice by changing the default policy
– Enable choice
– Provide information
– Do nothing
Let’s be clear that we all begin as unvaccinated and choose to be vaccinated or not. I’ve made this choice on my own and I have friends who are choosing differently, I take great exception to governments placing limits on our opportunity to interact socially in the future due to one’s vaccination status.
In a free, democratic and diverse society we must respect choice, not reward and punish it. A person with a disability, with full decision making capacity, who chooses not to get vaccinated is placing themselves of even greater exclusion in society. Now, wouldn’t that be a classic case of blaming the victim?
ReplyWhat a terribly disappointing analysis. I was reading this with great expectations, hoping to see the complexity of these issues opened up for intelligent public debate by an “expert” on ethics. Ethics is about nuance, subtlety. To compare new and still-experimental medical technology with hi-vis and hardhats is so absurd as to raise questions about the author’s intent with this piece. Straw man argument. mRNA has never been successfully deployed before and is now issued only under under emergency use authorisation.
The Ethics Centre, today, is hobbled by the precise problems that it attempts to unravel. Since breaking away from St James, it’s now totally dependent on corporate and individual donations. Should we be surprised that the Ethics Centre was arguing vociferously that there should not be a banking Royal Commission (just check its corporate and individual donors). Or that the Ethics Centre argued “shareholder greed” was to blame for banks laundering money for drug cartels and funding child exploitation?
This perspective above, we should remember, comes from the same author who wrote in April 2018 that “Royal commissions are the result of shareholders ruling the roost”. Nuff said, really.
ReplyHow far have we fallen? So easily are people prepared to take the leap into a world of “vaccine passports”; a digital ID system that will be integrated into our everyday lives. Imagine going to your local grocery store, a restaurant or a shopping mall, at each entrance you must use your smart phone to provide your digital ID. It is your smart phone today, tomorrow it is your finger print, smart card on your licence, maybe an embedded chip.
People would embrace these draconian measures because of the danger of Covid-19?
This virus has killed for the most part a very specific group of vulnerable people in Australia. Around 97% of all deaths attributed to Covid-19 are people aged 60 or over, around 90% are 70 and over; sadly most of these deaths occurred in Victoria when the virus escaped hotel quarantine and managed to find its way into some aged care facilities, where mostly vulnerable or weakened patients died.
Almost everyone is fine and a natural immunity from recovery is far superior to a vaccine immunity.
Talk about wanting to be protected from the unvaccinated and supporting forceful measures; words with flawed logic, that make sense only to weak cowards.
This flawed logic that vaccinated people only want to come into contact with other vaccinated people is ridiculous because ALL the children will NOT be vaccinated and they will be coming into common contact with other kids.
What future are these kids going to inherit? Maybe that should be a greater consideration, instead of considering or treating everyone else like they are all sick and a danger to you and recklessly dismissing the possibility of a much larger danger.
The problems we are facing are not going to get solved with mandates, they are only going to grow.
You cannot compare the use of PPE that you put on temporarily and then take off to that of a vaccine. It is not the same and your attempt to compare the two as a valid argument is ridiculous. A vaccine is long lasting and penetrates the body. PPE is/does neither of those things. I know of no hard hat that has the potential to injure/permanently damage/or kill it’s wearer.
Once again, you the author like so many have attempted to simplify a hugely complex situation into a one size fits all approach. I agree there are some professions such as healthcare that should potentially request vaccination for employment. But requiring every employer such as in the case of office based jobs to require vaccination is over the top. We’re not dealing with an airborne Ebola virus for heaven’s sake, this is covid.
Aside from that, where exactly do the covid survivors fit into your debate? I am one of them. Why should I be forced to take a vaccine when I now have better natural immunity than the vaccinated? Why aren’t I allowed the same freedoms? Isn’t it fair to say that injecting me with a vaccine that I don’t need puts me in a worse position of harm from the potential side effects, without providing any stronger protection from the virus? People with natural immunity are another facet of this complex discussion that should not be ignored, just because simplifying everything is the preferred method of the general public.
ReplyI agree with you Ben, this article is too naive to be taken seriously. The examples he provides regarding PPE, which are not invasive nor are they potentially likely to cause side effects, either acute or more importantly chronic. To use wearing a hard-hat with an injection shows a lack of thought about protective measures in a workplace. Sure, some occupations need to be vaccinated for hepatitis and yellow fever etc, but workers in these occupations will have no hesitancy for a COVID vaccine.
What worries me with most of the replies to this article is that they blame un-vaccinated people for spreading the virus. Vaccinated people can also get the virus and spread it. This us and them labeling is a typical trick of bigots and most disturbing in a democratic society. Importantly, once herd immunity is reached, look at Sweden and Denmark, no compulsory vaccinations are required. Personally I don’t care if the person working next to me is un-vaccinated, since my chances of getting COVID will be small and if I do get it, my symptoms will be minimal.
I think this wish for compulsory vaccinations is unfortunately based on fear, driven by a crazy media and gutless governments in this country. A sobering analysis of the recent AIHW report on the demography of last years 900 deaths (before there was a vaccine) shows how out of kilter is this fear campaign.
To take the authors argument to it’s logical conclusions, then we should also make flu vaccinations, consumption of vitamin pills (B12 and iron), hepatitis, Q-fever and yellow fever vaccinations, all compulsory for all workers. All for the good of workers and the public?
You can if you’re trying to set up a “straw man” argument Ben. Totally disingenuous to compare safety equipment with a new and experimental gene therapy. But there we go … the Ethics Centre went ahead and did it.
ReplyCovid-19 is a Health Risk. If someone is infected it endangers the individual’s life , the family and colleagues lives, and the public’s – hence the easiest route is to make it compulsory. In essence we are at war with Covid and during previous wars we have had conscription – we cannot drive a car without wearing a safety belt and yet many years ago the safety belt was an option when buying a car.
However, since making it compulsory is very controversial , it should at the very least become a condition of entry into workplaces and public venues
We don’t allow people to enter any public place with a gun in their hand …..and Covid is a smoking gun
Nirad – those who are vulnerable can be vaccinated. This is essential, of course. They will then be protected from serious effects if this vaccine is indeed effective – perhaps with boosters down the line. I don’t see any reasonable person denying this. What is controversial is forcing those that face low risk from covid to take a vaccine when they feel [with justification] it is the vaccine itself that poses a higher risk to them. They will be able to generate natural immunity. The immunity will be the same (or better) than vaccine-induced immunity: so why does it matter to you how such people get there? They want to take different paths to immunity.
ReplyRapid antigen testing is more effective than vaccination. Vaccination does not stop infection or transmission.
As for the rest, Tom has answered well.
Excellent article. I think it makes it very clear the considerations that employers need to take into account when thinking about rules for their employees. And I wouldn’t be surprised if many make vaccinations a condition of employment where the employee is in regular contact with other employees or customers. I also think many employers would want to impose restrictions on their customers. Cinema operators must know that without making the safest environment for their patrons by making vaccinations a requirement for entry, their patronage and profits will likely suffer. But I doubt any can impose such a requirement without government approval and support.
But when governments become involved I think we need to have a more in depth discussion about choice. I am a little skeptical of arguments around choice, because what’s often left unanalyzed is how realistic is the choice. If we make the cost of making a choice too high, can it really be regarded as a choice? For example, if vaccine requirements prevent the unvaccinated from shopping, performing any paid work, engaging in education or taking public transport, and extend to the point where the unvaccinated can barely exist in today’s society, I’d question if we’re presenting them with a real choice.
To be clear, I’m not saying that governments shouldn’t impose restrictions. I think they should, and they should enable businesses to impose appropriate restrictions. But determining exactly how far governments should go seems to me the most difficult part of this debate. I think it’s no wonder that there is such a vigorous discussion on this topic.
ReplyI’m struggling with the ethics of having to vaccinate my daughter who is 13 years of age.
In situations where not all the evidence of effectiveness is available (no long term data and the vaccine testing hasn’t covered impact on fertility et al) you have to ask what if you’re wrong, what if we’re wrong what if society is wrong in getting everyone vaccinated? What if the anti-vaxxers are wrong and it turns out that the virus has a worse effect than the vaccine?
I’m happy to make this decision for me. I’m in my 50s and based upon my past experiences and balance of risks have determined that it is better for me to take the vaccine.
But I don’t wish to make that decision for my daughter. She doesn’t have the life experience to make that decision and taking an unknown quantity may be detrimental to her future.
So a decision is to be made and she doesn’t have the tools. None of us have all the tools.
We have made past decisions about vaccinating our kids (measles, polio etc) but here we have had the benefit of lots of evidence as to the benefits v the risks. Covid for my 13 year old is very different.
Please help.
ReplyDon’t do it if you have any doubts. Wait as long as you can feel comfortable with your decision. She will not get sick – kids are mostly asymptomatic because their T-cells can tackle new viruses more easily. As more data comes in, then you can decide: there is no rush from your daughter’s POV.
ReplyVaccinating for polio etc is safe and has proven so over decades. There is no long term safety data on any covid 19 vaccine.
Your daughter has virtually no risk for severe outcome of Covid 19 infection unless she is immuno compromised or severely obese.
Why would you risk her health by allowing someone to experiment on her?
I think this all comes down to a calculation of risk = probability V consequence. We all know the consequence can be death so as cases rise the probability increases, however we know the vax makes a difference in getting C19. Look at the data from Victoria where in the first lock down most of the impacted people were adults, now we see the reverse and it surely because of the tax rate of over 40’s. My family are in the UK and what they had on the shelf went in your arm and people were happy to get it, RvC again. When the probability of death overcomes the risks of vax….. people will make their choice. Remember Maslow’s need triangle…… You are in a blessed position to be making these decisions, everywhere else in the 3rd world will take your dose no probs…
ReplyA great thought provoking article as usual. A couple of thoughts.
The examples that draw on workplace safety seemed a little off the mark. Yes employers are required to ensure health and safety in the workplace, however this is usually limited to those risks that arise from the undertaking. If there is a risk of falling objects then a helmet is a reasonable control. If you work with medically vulnerable people or your work specifically exposes a worker to infection risk (beyond the background community based risk) then vaccination (if available) against communicable diseases would also be a good control.
In the case of COVID however most workplaces are exposed to a communicable disease that is a public health issue, not one that arises or is amplified by the undertaking. Therefore it seems conditional workplace vaccination requirements to “protect he health and safety of a community” would represent employers taking on the responsibility of governments.
If you extend this argument to protecting workers (like the example of providing PPE) or the workplace (protecting customers) then you may also need to think about all the other communicable diseases that might be prevented by vaccination or other non-pharmaceutical controls in the workplace. This is not an unreasonable line of thinking as around 6,000 Australians die from non-COVID communicable diseases each year, so it is a real risk and transmission does occur in the workplace.
Technical arguments about the line in the sand on workplace risk however is not my real issue. My biggest concern regarding the current debate on COVID vaccination is the damage that it is wreaking on our community. Like many other issues at the moment, we seem have two distinct sides that are pitched against each other. This divide has the potential to inadvertently cause real physical and mental harm, be that the physical and mental safety workers trying to encourage / enforce polices on unwilling customers or the stigmatisation felt by individuals because of their vaccination status.
It seems to me that in forming policies, whether they be government or workplace policies, there may be some benefit to look beyond the pure compliance aspects and to try to understand the potential for unintentional consequences or harm that a may arise. There is often a middle ground that may not be perfect, but is our current divide perfect?
ReplyI’m not sure why this is such a debate. I’m a regulated health professional in Australia and in order to do my job I have to be vaccinated against several diseases. I’ve worked on 3 continents, over 30 years as a health professional and I’ve always required vaccinations. Why? Because it’s dangerous to myself and others if I’m not vaccinated.
The whole ‘my body, my choice’ argument against vaccination has multiple, international, multi-decade precedents to dismiss it. We’re a herd species, and we need to protect the herd as well as ourselves. If you feel you ‘deserve the right’ to wade through the crowds with highly transmissible, deadly diseases then you’re being hopelessly selfish. It demonstrates that you’re happy to accept the privileges of society, but none of the responsibilities. There is a cost to being a member of our collective enterprise of civilization, and that cost is the responsibility of not endangering the lives of others.
You have a right to make decisions about your body – but not about mine. Keep your viruses under control or society can, should, and will intervene to keep our collective ‘body’ safe, as it has been doing for multiple generations.
ReplyThanks Marc for a great reply. It’s helpful to have a well thought out argument when speaking with people who take the ‘my body, my choice’ attitude.
ReplyMarc, with all due respect to you and your profession, if the long term effects of a vaccine are unknown, adverse effects are being recorded and there is no measure of one’s propensity or potential for having an adverse effect, how can it in good conscience be compared to any other vaccine that does have details of long term effects, potential of adverse effects etc.
ReplyAs with the reply to Boyd. Many of those hesitant are hesitant because they are so very careful about their health – they have been responsible while many others have accepted different privileges. Now their good choices are being eroded by the bad choices of others, who have poor health in general. Moreover, the vaccine, while reducing the overall burden, does carry risks that cannot be swept under the rug. While these risks might be worth it for the more vulnerable [who have often gotten that way through poor lifestyle choices], and they should certainly take the vaccine, they should not be forced on those who face a greater risk from the vaccine than from the virus itself.
ReplyThese vaccinations are experimental. I agree that no infected person (vaccinated or non vaccinated) has a right to be out in society.
But no healthy person should be locked up for refusing experimental vaccines.
If employment is conditional on vaccination, then it would be fair to make the employer liable if an employee is injured by a vaccine. How many employers are willing to take this on? Or is government going to continue to provide blanket cover for all eventualities?
ReplyOf course there is a double edged sword here. The obligation of a Director and/or business owner, under the current Workplace Health and Safety legislation, requires compliance to reasonably ensure the health and safety for both staff and for anyone attending locations that they are responsible for. Directors/business owners are also required to comply with OH&S guidance and any Gov health directives.
If a member of staff is made ill or dies form COVID that is introduced to the workplace (a terrible situation and burden to the family) and no reasonable measures have been in place to prevent infections, it is highly likely some liability will fall to those Directors/business owners.
What if an employee, coerced into vaccination, is maimed or killed by the vaccine? I presume you have heard of rapid antigen testing?
ReplyThe real issue is the balance between civil liberties and government encroachment on those liberties ‘all in the name of protection’ (nanny state) – originally from outside, not internal implosion. Compare the USA Patriot Act (a possible covert form) and China (a possible overt form) of liberty control. When the balance becomes skewed, in the past revolts occured – in the now…the government calls it terrorism to self justify their liberties control.
Reply” Governments, companies, etc. should not be in the business of imposing beliefs on others. They can seek to persuade – but nothing more. However, they have every right to set conditions on behaviour and then leave it to people to choose whether or not to meet the conditional requirements that have been set.”
It is a fallacy the think that imposition of behavioral requirements is not an imposition of beliefs. Joe believes there is a threat in an area, so conditionally requires that one does not enter. It is inappropriate for any organisation to impose it’s beliefs through behavioral control on people’s bodies or their own wellbeing. It is up to the individual to make an informed decision based on their personal circumstances, not based on some focused use of statistics and fear mongering.
ReplyFirst I feel I need to say I am fully vaccinated, a boss, and the only person in my workplace intending to get the jab at this time due to either the invulnerable sense of youth, fear of vaccines or disbelief about the consequences of Covid.
Whilst your arguments wash for wearing hard hats I am not sure they are salient for vaccines as we also have a general agreement of my body my choice. Penetrating the barrier of the skin changes things. Think of the spit test where you ask someone to spit into their hand and then lick it back up. A hard hat does not challenge this sense of self and not self. Also, there are very minor but significant risks of taking a vaccine in the short term, and obviously no studies in the long term. While I would like to have everyone vaccinated I cannot in good conscience insist on it. I suspect once their friends and relatives start catching it and getting ill most of them will change their minds. Till then patience and good practice must suffice.
Your article rightly seeks to separate facts from emotion and rhetoric. However your statement – “Yet, many of these same commentators are lining up to condemn politicians who take an identical stance in response to the proportionately greater risk to life posed by COVID-19” presents this as a fact when it is not. I have identified 3 errors in this statement: 1. Proportionately greater risk to life than what? To the risk of a terror attack worldwide? to the risk of a terrorist attack on a plane? To the risk of a terror attack in a CBD cafe? These are very different risk profiles. We all accept a level of surveillance/security on a plane that we may not accept in a busy cafe. 2. Even if you identified what risks you are comparing, you would then have to adjust for measures taken to prevent risks before concluding that COVID is a greater risk. Are you comparing COVID deaths avoided to terrorist attacks avoided due to the liberties reduced by government serveillance? My guess is that without security at airports, there would be may more deaths from terror attacks in planes, as was the case in the 70s. 3. Your statement assumes that vacc reduces risk to life for all people equally, when clearly it reduces risk to life for vulnerable (eg elderly) but it does not reduce risk to life of children. Whereas measures against terrorism protect people equally eg airport security, surveillance cameras, terrorism suspects.
ReplyThanks Simon. An excellent argument, as always. Ive been looking forward to reading this. However, how do you deal with the conditional vaccination outside of employment: for example, once the lock downs are over, I would like to be able to attend a hair salon or a cinema or a restaurant. Being fully vaccinated, I would prefer to be in a company of fully vaccinated patrons. How should these businesses deal with their customers? How would conditional vaccination work in that scenario?
ReplyI would be interested in thoughts after reflecting on the obligations of employers under Work Health and Safety Legislation. This seems to me to be missing in most analysis on the topic. In the Queensland Work Health and Safety Act Section 19 sets out the obligations of an employer. In broad terms the obligation is to take all reasonable steps to protect the health and safety of not only employees but anyone who may be affected by the businesses activity. Similar obligations are common in all WHS legislation around the country. Through this lens I find it difficult to understand how I could do anything other than, if not make the vaccine a condition of employment, at least make it conditional to perform certain functions (e.g. travel on a plane), or potentially even come to the office. If I fail to take that step then how can I said to be taking all reasonable steps to protect my employees and those who they may interact with in the course of their duties. How then am I not in contravention of the WH&S Act?
ReplyDo you think it is reasonable to bully someone into receiving an experimental treatment rather than using rapid antigen testing?
ReplyA good paper, but the last sentence confused me: “It’s an approach that I think we failed to heed when it came to our nation’s response to the threat posed by terrorism – sowing the seeds that we seem to be harvesting today.”
I think I missed something here; what “seeds” are we harvesting today as a result of our response to terrorism? Greater protection from terrorism or reduced liberty?
ReplyYou should be ashamed of yourself for this analysis. Information is coming out all around the world on the adverse affects of this vaccination. The vax should not be made mandatory nor should you be bullied by your government or employer into being forced to take the vax. THIS IS NOT A VACCINATION THOROUGHLY TESTED and thousands of injuries to vaccinated people are being reported on VARS. NOBODY should be mandated to take it nor be discriminated against by not being allowed to work, cross national borders or enter into a business premise. Vaccination of children is an abuse.
ReplyGood for you, I’m in total agreeance, even our United Australia party head was in our senate showing scientific proof from fully vaccinated countries that proved that the vaccinated are 7 times more likely to catch COVID than unvaccinated people. In Sydney when they forced vaccinations on all those school children a few months back, a friend of mine who was doing security there saw 2 children die from the vaccine and the government covered it up and had the media put out stories saying it wasn’t true.
ReplyThank you for this concise summary of how to assess the balance between public safety and personal liberty.
I liked your comment about the “duty to act on a well-informed conscience. That is, one cannot claim the protections or validations of conscience when based in proven error (e.g. vaccines contain micro-chips)”. How do we disabuse people of erroneous beliefs like this?
ReplyI enjoyed reading this article very much and took much from the very balanced view / arguments presented . I am personally vaccinated , but married to someone caught up in the “ liberty “ mentality who currently currently “ cannot see the wood for the trees “ this may help him rebalance his thinking . Thank you .
ReplyAn excellent well argued case for making Covid 19 vaccinations as a conditional requirement for many kinds of employment, and possibly for being part of an educational community (e.g. Schools, Universities, etc.).
With the existence of fake news we also need to have some public statements that show that there is no evidence that (for example) a Covid vaccination leads to sterility!
ReplyAssume an employee has natural immunity from having been exposed to the virus during the course of their normal day-to-day living. This natural immunity situation is already quite common in some countries. Should vaccination be a condition of employment in that case? I’d argue no, especially since vaccination is not risk-free.
ReplySimon, although I entirely agree with your well presented arguments, some elements are often forgotten in these debates. Eg the conditional elements ordinarily badly accepted (license to drive, helmets for miners) come with no long term side effects. No health is being compromised by imposing such conditions. No personal health risk, especially not unknown ones. Eg would it not be entirely different if someone made it conditional to wear a PPE helmet but couldn’t tell you whether doing so will cause brain cancer because of the constant wearing of the plastic? At this stage I am not aware of any long term health data relating to Covid vaccines (indeed, this in confirmed in the vaccines’ provisional/emergency TGA approval). Not a conspiracy, just unknown at this stage. Despite hoping that they are, it would be careless to think that the new vaccines are entirely harmless. And it is impossible to give any properly informed consent in the absence of this information (and also in the absence of knowledge of viable alternatives). And so making someone make new vaccines a condition of something as important as employment (as opposed to a jaunt to Bali, to use your example) would be unconscionable. Also, if considering it from an employers entitlement to protect people from harm to allow them to continue to perform services, let’s look at people’s diets, alcohol consumption (more than just of alcoholics), general overall health? Where does it end? And if the vaccinated trust in the science, then the unvaccinated pose no real threat to them. Otherwise, the vaccinated will need to avoid the vaccinated. This virus isn’t going away. The vulnerable may need to take extra precautions as they have always had to do, for example, chemo patients have always needed to, or people with low immune systems.
Just some thoughts. An open to arguments in reply.
I work in an office setting. My coworker’s decision to eat burgers and fries daily and go to the pub every evening after work has no direct impact on my health. Even though I am fully vaccinated there is still a 34% chance that a Covid-19 Delta variant infected person will infect me with the virus if I am exposed to them beyond a certain threshold, such as would be the likely case when sharing office space. According to an article published online by Forbes, “unvaccinated individuals are far more likely — at least ~5 times more likely and possibly up to ~30 times more likely — to lead to the infection of others. This is even true when you include the new context of the CDC’s most worrisome data release to date.” So my unvaccinated coworker is at least 5 times more likely to become infected by sitting next to an infected person on their 45 minute bus commute, therefore 5 times more likely to later expose me to the same virus, and therefore creating at least a 5 time greater risk that I will become infected and bring the virus home to my unvaccinated pre-school children whom I cannot have vaccinated yet. According to the same article, “If you spent a full year unvaccinated when you could have been vaccinated, your own personal responsibility rises to 0.44 infections, 0.033 hospitalizations, and 0.0029 deaths.” So there is direct harm to others by choosing not to be vaccinated and the data is proving it.
ReplyNo it is not a great reply – your “coworker’s decision to eat burgers and fries daily and go to the pub every evening after work” certainly does have a direct public health impact that has a downstream impact on the healthcare system and the economy, and on you.
Healthy people who look after their bodies have supported this kind of thing for years. Indeed, poor health through poor choices will have an impact on the severity of covid infection symptoms [whether vaccinated or not], with many of the dead having co-morbidities often relating to their poor decisions and poor lifestyles. So you are requiring that someone very careful about their health [that would, on average, not suffer badly from covid and would also develop immunity this way, just like a vaccinated person if not a little better] must potentially damage their bodies [current data: roughly 21.5 million doses with around 300 deaths from AZ and around 200 Pfizer deaths, from covidlive.com.au and the TGA] for the less healthy who often have made that choice?
This does not even take into account the fact that the vaccinated can still carry the same amount of virus in their noses as the unvaccinated. Also, the improvements that one gets are primarily in the higher age ranges and for the most vulnerable. I don’t think anyone but actual anti-vaxxers believe that the vaccine should not be used for such groups. Most people with issues about the covid vaccine are utterly clear that they are talking about this one specific case.
Your preschool children will be just fine – articles/data aplenty on this. Read more. Read widely.
ReplyHow many would you kill when you spend an entire year unvaccinated AND uninfected? Oh, and BTW if you are vaccinated and infected you will probably feel OK and continue in society infecting others. If not vaccinated you will feel ill and stay home.
Witness current outbreaks in gym and pub in NSW (ALL vaccinated)
Sofie, Back in the AIDS epidemic I remember commentators arguing that infecting another, whether by needle-sharing or unprotected sex, and whether knowingly or unknowingly, it was tantamount to murder and should be punishable by law.
Of course, those to whom punishment was intended were possibly gay, druggies, prostitutes or perhaps just had habits deemed “unsavoury”.
So I dont recall there being much objection to the suggestions, but thankfully no laws were enacted AFAIK.
We are in a similar situation now; should I have the right to pass on a lethal infection to another person?
At least the druggie could get a new needle, today the “next victim” has no way of knowing who is high-risk and how to manage their risk unless there is some workplace conditions and other societal conditions that can help the “high-risk” folks manage their situation.
We have an obligation to ensure the high-risk folks, and those caring for high-risk ppl, can intelligently manage the risk and still participate in society, and that must involve limiting the opportunities to cause harm by those choosing to remain unvaccinated.
Sofie
There have been no long term safety studies for the simple reason no vaccine has been out there long enough. The clinical trials end in May 2023. Consequently, all vaccines under emergency use are experiments.
I think that employers who mandate jabs should be liable for all injuries and deaths caused to employees who can prove coercion.
As a vaccination protects your person- it would appear that the important point is- does the worker want to be protected?
That should be a matter for the employee, and there should not be pressure brought to bear on any individual who chooses not to have a vaccine.
When we speak of Covid vaccines we must also remember that there are none that are approved yet, and no employee or person should be compelled in any way to be given a non approved or provisionally approved medication or treatment, to enable them to work.
This is a personal and private matter, and one that no Australian should have to be forced to reveal or discuss- by coercion or even encouragement.
It would be good to note that even a counsellor cannot coerce or encourage a client as that is considered unethical.
As to religious objections to a medical treatment, these are also personal and private, and usually strongly held.
It is all very well to make arguments from afar about these things, but this is no trifling matter!
For many Australians they have lost their jobs, their livelihoods, their small businesses, not so the big businesses.
So it is no insignificant matter. It’s one that speaks to the heart of all Australians.
As an employer I have a duty of care to my staff and, by extension, their families and so on. If I decide that it is none of my business whether someone chooses to be vaccinated or not then I am, in part, ignoring and abdicating my responsibilities to deliver a safe workplace. That is to me the antithesis of my moral responsibility. All but one of my staff are double vaccinated. Several have health conditions and or family members (children) with health conditions that could be seriously threatened by COVID. The one member of staff who only recently revealed they are not vaccinated at all has made that choice. We are now making the choice to say that a condition of their returning to work in our office is that they are double vaxxed. It is also an imperative as other staff would choose not to return to the office if they were there. The particular person can, at least in the short term, work from home, but we are struggling with what to do long term. The fact that the person’s ‘choice’ demonstrates how out of sync they are with the ethics and ethos of the office in terms of social responsibility is an issue that we are also struggling with.
ReplyEmployers should not have the right to set vaccination as a condition of employment, purely on the fact that vaccination carries risk. You list examples of conditional requirements such as miners wearing safety gear and athletes taking anti doping blood tests which do not carry risks like those of medical treatment. The logic there is flawed. Ethically where there is risk there must be choice.
ReplyA person who chooses to NOT be vaccinated has that right of choice.
An employer has a right to ensure that all employees and customers are protected from potential harms. An unvaccinated person is a greater risk of potential spread of infection. In the current situation, it has been shown that the SARS-COV-2 virus can remain viable for many hours on surfaces. Infection is also happening in situations of ‘quiet’ air where there is little external fresh air available. These (surfaces and ‘quiet air’) are infection risks in many workplaces. Workplaces have been identified as significant places for infection with this delta variant of the virus.
A potential employee always retains the right to refuse a job offer, or to refuse to meet the conditions of employment – hence refuse to continue with an application.
An employer has a responsibility to protect employees and others who enter the workplace.
It is not a choice anymore when the government is mandating that for any job you have to be vaccinated.
ReplySo you are accepting liability if a “conditioned” employee is harmed or killed by a vaccine they did not want?
ReplyI think you should stop listening to that so called news on the television and watch our senate, upper and lower houses live on the internet, there has been scientific proof given to our senate by the United Australian party proving that you are at 7 times more likely to get COVID if you ARE VACCINATED, than not. And check out the hospital data records, most people in hospital have been fully vaccinated & most people in hospital with COVID who are dying are fully vaccinated, and most have NOT caught it from unvaccinated people. Stop parroting what you hear on television.
Replyagree with jess- simons article is too simplistic. Not logical and ethically flawed.
its very different to loose a job or having to decline a job than to chose not to go to Africa on holidays (or business).
its also completely different to be required to wear a helmet with zero side effects compared to be required to have a vax that carries small but real risks of adverse effects including death. The other side of the coin is that an employer that mandates the vaccination will also have to carry the liability of that mandate.
My business is based in Stockholm Sweden and as such this is not an issue (no mandates or vaccin passports, 70% of population vaccinated and climbing by their own choice) but i would not mandate any employees here to get vaccinated as i dont have the right/wish to chose their risks and i would not like to be liable for any potential adverse effects. My customers/clients have the choice to protect themselves.
Join the conversation
Should an employer set vaccination as a condition of employment?