Russell Bell: 'Should the vaccinated reap consequences from the decisions of those who say no?

The coming vaccine certificates send responsibility from the DHBs down to day-to-day business activity, writes Russell Bell.

Comment

As an introduction to this week's article, some context. I am double-vaccinated against Covid-19.

Most of my friends and family are fully vaccinated and a few are not. Those who are not vaccinated include people that I care about.

They have their reasons, from Bill of Rights concerns to fears over the efficacy of the vaccines to encroachment of Big Government on freedoms.

And they are entitled to their views, just as I am entitled to mine. Just as they are entitled to their decision regarding vaccination, as they are entitled to reap the consequences that arise from it.

The question is, should the vaccinated also reap unwanted consequences from the decisions of those who choose not to take it?

Where I have concern is that the decisions of a small few currently, and unfortunately into the future, will materially impact the lives of the majority (and businesses as a result).

There is a lot right about the Government's approach to Covid since early 2020, but there is also an equal measure of poor policy and questionable decision-making – especially regarding the vaccine.

At the top of the 'poor' column is the very late securing and then rolling out of the vaccine itself, which is a leading cause for the longer than necessary time spent by Aucklanders in the current lockdown.

But hot on the heels of that are the potential outcomes of DHB-led drives for the magic 90 per cent target, which conceivably could see communities like Whanganui and its business community locked out while the rest of New Zealand moves to the free-er but only slightly less flawed traffic light system.

The notion of the majority being held back by a minority could easily crystallise and only risks more uncertainty for businesses.

This approach also devolves implementation responsibility away from the Government to DHB regions – an interesting approach, as it runs counter to the centralisation of the coming health reforms and water management.

But the devolution goes further in terms of the post-vaccine environment.

The coming vaccine certificates send this responsibility from the DHBs down to day-to-day business activity.

Essentially, business owners and their staff could be forced into playing police when a non-vaccinated person or someone who forgot their vaccine certificate enters their premises and cannot be served due to the Covid status of the region.

Given the clear feeling of the unvaccinated in recent protests, these situations will likely occur and could become commonplace, which isn't sustainable in the long run.

And then, even if these matters can be managed, a high percentage of unvaccinated people could see our region held back or even locked down in future if the DHB comes under pressure from Covid cases.

To the best of my knowledge, the approaches we will see employed haven't been used in the past with previous endemic diseases.

We are told we are doing this to protect ourselves and our health system.

I get that. But maybe policy to build the health system to cope with the predicted results of the unvaccinated's decisions would be more effective than placing hard-to-enforce limitations on the unvaxxed while potentially reaping unwanted consequences which hold back freedoms from the vaccinated?