Ladies and gentlemen, here in KVS, at home, and at work,
Dear speakers,
Fellow organizers,
Two weeks ago, the Belgian government submitted a bill concerning the mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers. It had been coming for some time, and had already been postponed once due to technical reasons: the legislative work wasn’t finished.
But two weeks ago, the bill was finally submitted, and next week parliament will vote on it. Unless postponed again, at the sole discretion of the government, the bill will make Covid-vaccination mandatory from the 1st of July, according to a vaccination schedule that is yet to be determined, for all healthcare workers. If they fail to comply, they will lose the right to practice.
The motivation for the bill is based in large part on virological, epidemiological, and vaccinological advice received on the 19th of July 2021.
That was before the Delta-wave hit Belgium.
When we still thought vaccines offer strong protection not only against severe disease, as they do, but also against infection and onward transmission.
Before we knew how fast Covid-immunity wanes.
Before we had any idea about the relative strength of post-infection immunity versus vaccination-induced immunity.
And at a time when Omicron was merely a letter in the Greek alphabet.
But hey, it’s not all bad news: the bill does contain an impact-analysis. It even mentions the sources used for the impact analysis, which I will quote in full: “Intuitive evaluation” - end of quote. You will also be pleased to hear that according to this intuitive evaluation, there are no negative impacts to be expected at all. None.
Not on poverty risk.
Not on socioeconomic inequality and social cohesion.
Not on inequality between men and women.
Not on the job market.
On public health, however, the intuitive evaluation predicts an unambiguous positive impact.
Yet, many people risk losing their jobs. Many people who are up until this day caring for our loved ones are now being derided as ignorant or selfish for their choice not to be vaccinated against Covid. Many sick people may not get the care they need as many healthcare workers - a bottleneck profession - will be forced to find another job.
How many? Nobody knows.
At what societal cost? Nobody knows.
At what economic cost? Nobody knows.
At what health cost? Nobody knows.
Though in fact, some people do know parts of the answers to these questions, or at least how to find them.
The “Lentesymposium De Printemps” is of course not merely a symposium about mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers. Its goal does not even include deciding whether this is a good idea or not, you will hear different opinions from different speakers. Instead, the symposium aims to bring a large and diverse group of experts together, each of whom brings a piece of the puzzle. We do this because we want to help. And if there’s one thing this bill is showing, it’s that the Covid-policy puzzle has many pieces indeed, many of which have remained missing so far.
When the Wintermanifesto was published, we were pitched by the media against the experts appointed by the government. But that was not correct. First of all, the Wintermanifesto is a forward-looking manifesto, and the dissection of past policy was merely meant to learn from the past, so that we can do better in the future.
Moreover, the critical analysis was oriented towards the structures and the mechanisms, and thus towards the government which is responsible for these structures and mechanisms. (Where is the government today?) It was not meant to criticize or undermine the appointed experts themselves. So let me say this very clearly: it is with great respect and gratitude that we welcome in the symposium several of the protagonists of the Covid crisis, with the boots still on their feet and the mud still on their faces.
So here we stand, shoulder to shoulder, with scientists, doctors, legal professionals, and more, ready to engage today and tomorrow in an overdue conversation. I think I speak for all the organizers, and there are many, when I say that we hope this is the beginning of a renewed acceptance of constructive disagreement to advance our collective understanding, and ultimately to advance rational, empathetic policy. Respectfully and without prejudice or blame, but with an open mind, room for mistakes, and without taboos.
I emphasize that last thing, because what I as an academic fear the most is that academics will stop speaking up when they feel their voice needs to be heard. I can attest to the fact that this has happened. It is unprecedented here in the West in recent history, and it needs to be undone.
Allow me to end this opening statement by thanking first of all our hosts here in KVS, who kindly offered this beautiful location for this symposium. KVS, as a theater that aims to bridge socio-economic and cultural divides, is a fitting symbol for much of what we should do better going forward. And second, by thanking all the co-organizers, the moderators, you members of the audience, and last but not least all the speakers in this symposium. I for one look forward to listening to you all.