We are talking about the rights of the unvaccinated and the fact that this opens the door to variable medicine depending on behavior. Will we punish the smoker or the one who eats badly? It would be discriminatory, it is claimed.
But there is a big difference. The smoker, like one who eats badly, threatens his own health, not that of others, if he goes to the hospital. The unvaccinated threatens the health of others and probably kills a few by spreading the virus or forcing the cancellation of important care for patients who are waiting for this care or who should have it. This is called load shedding. In short, his refusal of the vaccine has an effect on others.
The difference is there: the freedom of the unvaccinated collides with the right to life and health of others. So, either an overload for the unvaccinated in the event of COVID-19, or a gradation of measures going as follows:
1. Prohibition of access to all businesses without a vaccination passport – ordering online or by telephone only;
2. Costs if you are being treated for COVID-19 and have refused the vaccination (we are not talking about exemptions for medical reasons);
3. Compulsory vaccination. In case of refusal, you only have the private sector where you can get treatment, under its conditions.
Perhaps there would be a way to amend the Public Health Act for those borderline and rare cases where behaviors threaten not only the person, but the health of others and of the population in general. There are many reasonable limits to human rights and freedoms which mean that we do not have the right to poison or shoot someone if we get up one morning with this idea. All the difference is there: the refusal of the vaccine does not put only the person in danger, but a group of individuals also having individual rights and freedoms, including the right to be treated in a timely manner.
Watch video