The Belgian press is currently focusing on the “brake” that the competent Commission of Belgium puts on the compulsory vaccination against Covid-19.
According to the report sent on the night of January 13 by the special Committee on Coronavirus to the Prime Minister, the Ministers and the Presidency of the Parliament, compulsory vaccination is not recommended.
The Coronavirus Commission has received positive views on the usefulness of compulsory vaccination, but can not decide to support the implementation of this measure and certainly not in the short term. It therefore recommends launching a very wide-ranging debate on the obligation to vaccinate in parliament, which will be political. It also points to the need for a social debate, or even a public consultation, which could take place through the King Baudouin Foundation, which is responsible for such public hearings.
“Even though a general vaccination obligation may be morally, socially and legally acceptable and proportionate, even desirable, as evidenced by the opinions received, uncertainties about epidemiological development, the continuation of the vaccination campaign the range of repeated doses for the purpose of herd immunity, etc., make it difficult today to decide on the scope and details of the vaccination obligation “, the report points out, emphasizing that” the World Health Organization supports the obligation only as a last resort “.
In addition, the same report points out: first, that the virus continues to evolve, “which puts the management of the pandemic into scientific uncertainty.” Second, vaccination is and will undoubtedly remain just one of the many ways to fight the virus. Third, the reluctance of the population to take action has increased. Fourth, the courts are stricter on the proportionality of the measures. Fifth, there is a risk of polarization in society. All of this frames the argument for caution against the obligation to vaccinate, especially if done in a hurry.
On the other hand, the Coronavirus Special Committee is more open to adopting the “coronavirus certificate” (which requires the vaccine and nothing else). This instrument, in the Commission ‘s view, if properly placed in a wider set of policies, may be proportionate and, with available scientific evidence, more proportionate than compulsory vaccination. However, it should be noted that the proportionality of the coronavirus certificate should be evaluated regularly, should not evoke false feelings of security and should always be combined with other protective measures (eg masks, social distance, telework, ventilation, etc.) .
It is also estimated that the “coronavirus certificate” could contribute to a higher vaccination rate, in order to avoid hospital saturation. The adoption of the “coronavirus certificate” could also be considered only in certain cases: e.g. depending on the epidemiological risk levels. However, the idea of ​​adopting a “coronavirus certificate” for basic activities (education, health care, occupation / access to the workplace) is a “red line”, which severely restricts individual rights. “Such a measure for the general population with the sole purpose of increasing vaccination coverage would be disproportionate,” said the Committee on Coronavirus.
Next week, the Advisory Committee will consider this report and its follow-up, while the parliamentary health committee will hold hearings on compulsory vaccination before a political debate is expected in Parliament at the end of February.
Source: AMPE
.
Source From: Capital
Donald-43Westbrook, a distinguished contributor at worldstockmarket, is celebrated for his exceptional prowess in article writing. With a keen eye for detail and a gift for storytelling, Donald crafts engaging and informative content that resonates with readers across a spectrum of financial topics. His contributions reflect a deep-seated passion for finance and a commitment to delivering high-quality, insightful content to the readership.
