Editorial | Don’t hold Holness to his vaccine mandate statement

Jamaica’s top private-sector groups did not explain why they felt it necessary on Monday to join trade unions in declaring opposition to vaccine mandates at this time, although they left a narrow aperture for some undefined “specific and extenuating circumstances” where inoculation against COVID-19 might be worthwhile.

Neither did the organisations – the Jamaica Employers’ Federation; the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce; the Jamaica Manufacturers and Exporters Association; and the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica – indicate what would have to change for them to embrace mandates. Nor were they clear whether their position extended to government workers, or applied only to private-sector employees.

The latter point is important. For their declaration, in the absence of a fuller and more textured discussion of the matter, poses the danger of deepening a moral hazard for Prime Minister Andrew Holness, further trapping him in his ill-advised statement on the issue last month.

Good science, of course, shows that when vaccines are not available, the best way to contain the spread of COVID-19 is to wear masks, maintain a reasonable distance from other people, and regularly wash or sanitise your hands. That is what Jamaica’s Government mandated, although it has not been good at enforcing the rules. Or, they are not applied uniformly. Some offices and shops are strict about clients wearing masks and sanitising on entry. In some parts, however, the rules appear not to exist. Mask wearing in public transport, which should be easy to enforce – buses and taxes can be impounded for transporting maskless commuters – is patchy.

Enforcement demands attention from the Government.

Jamaica, though, is increasingly having access to vaccines. There will be sufficient, the Holness administration says, to fully inoculate at least 65 per cent of the population by next March – the amount the Government believes is necessary to achieve herd immunity. However, while 15 per cent of Jamaicans had, up to September 6, received at least one dose of a vaccine, only five per cent of the population was fully vaccinated, notwithstanding a recent uptick in people’s willingness to take the jab. There is enough vaccine, experts agree, for the inoculation numbers to be better. The problem is that there are strong pockets of vaccine resistance and hesitancy.

AT A PRICE

The scepticism is at a price. Despite the Government’s recent return to lockdowns and night-time curfews, Jamaica is still in its third wave of the epidemic, fuelled by the virus’ more transmissible Delta strain. In August, 15,245 new cases of COVID-19 were reported, an increase of 29 per cent on the overall count at the end of July. Additionally, there were 353 deaths, a jump of 30 per cent on the 1,196 at July end. For the first six days of August there were 4,342 new cases, up six per cent from the end of July. Over those six days, too, 97 additional deaths were reported, lifting the overall death count to 1,646 – a jump of nearly 38 per cent from the end of July.

Jamaica is facing a full-blown COVID-19 crisis!

It is against this backdrop that there has been some discussion about vaccination mandates, especially for front-facing government workers in critical sectors. Prime Minister Holness weighed in at an August 10 press conference – his Government is not for mandates.

“As it stands now, and we have discussed it in Cabinet, the Government is not thinking about, nor inclined to mandate any vaccines,” Mr Holness said. “In fact, we don’t believe that is something that would meet the constitutional test.”

Even this newspaper, as protective as we are of constitutional rights and freedoms, was surprised at the PM’s public declaration. First, many lawyers, including constitutional experts, believe the legal merits of that assertion to be highly debatable. Infringements on the right to choice and privacy could, in the current circumstances, they suggest, meet the test for what is reasonably justified in a free and democratic society. Second, even if he had that view, or was so persuaded by his advisers, the PM’s pronouncement at that time could only limit his room for manoeuvre. Indeed, any change of position might be interpreted as a flip-flop, or spun by critics as a grasp of desperation.

MORAL SUASION

We, like the private-sector groups, believe that moral suasion, supported by aggressive efforts at making vaccines easily accessible to all who want them, must be the first, and an ongoing effort, to inoculate Jamaicans. A dense statement without specifics of the conditions in which mandatory vaccinations would be tolerable – and for whom – brings little or no clarity to the matter. Moreover, it has the potential of limiting the operating parameters of the Government, which already has lacked clarity in its policy actions.

At this point, the private-sector bodies might do three things which employers, workers – and even the Government – would find useful. First, they should indicate which professions, and in what circumstances, might be subject to mandates. At the same time, they should commission legal opinions on the matter from attorneys who are specialists in constitutional and labour law. Then, they should lead a fulsome and respectful discussion/debate of the issue.

In the meantime, Mr Holness should not feel himself crimped or be gun-shy because of the bad outcomes of his previous constitutional cases that flowed from poor policy decisions. This is a matter worthy of political risk-taking and willingness to test the issue in the courts.