As I see it, taking the vaccine is now a national imperative. Once the nation is well-vaccinated, we can get on the road to restoring what the pandemic has taken away from us.
Helping others will always involve personal risks and detriments. But we need to unite our efforts to save our country, our economy, and our future from the destructive effects of the pandemic.
To those who have volunteered to be vaccinated, I say thank you for your sacrifice and the risk you took, for sake of others and for loved ones.
In this pandemic which affects us all, there is a big picture to consider. In the big picture, so long as the nation is insufficiently vaccinated, our borders will never be fully opened, our economy will be hampered, and people’s lives and livelihoods will remain in limbo.
To those eligible for vaccination but are hesitant to take the vaccine, do consider joining the vaccination drive. In my humble opinion, time is not on our side.
Jeannette Chong Aruldoss
The above is the concluding paragraph of an appeal by Jeannette Chong in a post in TRE. Does anyone know what she is talking about? What is the real problem? I know, lawyers are very good in words, in arguments, but in science, technology and numbers?
The issue in her argument is that our lives are affected because the economy is affected and we need to get our lives back by reopening the economy. And why is vaccination imperative? It is to open the economy.
Then what does vaccination do? For one, vaccination does not stop one from getting infected. Two, vaccination does not prevent the spread of the virus. The best vaccination does is to lower the risk of the infection getting too serious or leading to death. What do these mean? Getting vaccination is a personal affair, about protecting oneself from being more sick or dying. Getting vaccinated or not does not increase or decrease the spread of Covid19.
The spread of the disease can be moderated by isolation, social distancing, wearing masks and not socialising when one is infected. It has little to do with vaccination!
So what is this hype about calling for compulsory vaccination or imperative vaccination if it is not going to have any direct effect on the spread of the disease or opening of the economy?
Go ahead and open the door, open the economy for all you want. The people that did not get vaccinated would only be responsible to themselves and their actions would not lead to infecting others if they wear masks, maintain social distancing and isolate themselves when infected. Vaccination is only to protect themselves and lower the risk of hospitalisation and death if it did reach that stage. There is no need to cry and panic whether they are vaccinated or not.
In fact getting vaccination is taking a risk, a sacrifice, to allow the opening of the economy. Can you believe this? Why would anyone want to take a risk for the sake of opening the economy? Is this too much to ask for? Asking people to take risk, make it compulsory some more, so that the economy can be open? OK, the compulsory call was not by Jeannette. But I must give her credit for admitting that getting vaccinated is taking a risk.
If getting vaccinated would prevent one from being infected, thus lowering the risk of spreading the disease, it would be more meaningful to make it compulsory, imperative. But it is not. It is now proven beyond any doubt that vaccination does not prevent one from being infected. This is unlike other vaccinations that we have known, eg, measles, polio, etc etc.
PS. From a commenter called Oxygen in TRE.
'The vaccines now in use seems ineffective of their claimed efficacy protection. Just look at the Jurong Port/KTV clusters where 3/4 of the infected are fully vaccinated, right?
This cluster proportion is higher than the population-wide averages (which include children) reveals the futility of vaccination outcome sought.
SO IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE THAT SOME DON’T WANT TO TAKE RISKS of the unknown when the known outcome is so dismally defeating of outcome.'