From December 3, people wanting to attend church services, gatherings, hospitality events, gyms and those wanting to avail themselves of close contact businesses will need the My Vaccine Pass to prove they have been double-vaccinated.

Those responsible for such occasions who fail to enforce vaccination requirements will face a fine of up to $15,000.

On Tuesday, Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Michael Wood announced the NZ Pass Verifier - an app that can be used on mobile devices to verify the holder of the My Vaccine Pass.

The NZ Pass Verifier is designed to enable churches and those organising gatherings and hospitality events to stop people who don't meet the vaccination requirements from entering high-risk situations and venues under the ‘traffic light' system.

However, leaders of church communities across the country are expressing concern and confusion about how to implement the My Vaccine Pass.

Nigel Cottle, a church leader and the general manager of Crave Café, told RNZ that he is nervous about implementing the new system. He says he is going to take it on himself to stand at the door to check My Vaccine passes.

"My hope is that people have a generosity to the staff because it's not their decision, but they are having to outwork the implications of the government policy which in general we are supportive of."

Cottle's concern is echoed by a number of Catholic clergy around the country. "We have greeters at the front door, not bouncers," a priest told CathNews.

"We understand the seriousness of the situation, but turning people away goes against the grain.

"We're in the business of welcoming people," he said.

He is a little critical of the recent bishops' statement that some see creating different categories of Mass-goers.

Another who is supportive of the My Vaccine passport told CathNews he thinks it is important that the Church changes its language and understanding about masses for the vaccinated and un-vaccinated.

"It's important the Church places the emphasis on people gathering, of people congregating, rather than having masses for the vaccinated and un-vaccinated", he said.

"It's also not just about Mass", he said. "Christmas is coming, traditionally a time for people to go to confession. I'm not sure how social distancing is going to work inside the confessional.

"People normally speak quietly during confession - I don't know how speaking quietly and face masks will go.

"We don't want everyone to hear," he said with a grin.

Another priest told CathNews that he is yet to hear from his diocese about what to do when an unvaccinated person without a My Vaccine Pass wants to join the vaccinated congregation for Mass.

"There's nothing. Policy is fine, but it needs to be supported. If you will the ends, you will the means.

"What do we do if an unvaccinated person insists on joining the congregation?

"We don't want disagreements at the door of the church, we don't want to be the State's police.

"What do we do?", he asked.

One priest told CathNews that ultimately if a non-vaccinated person insisted on joining the vaccinated group he would consider not proceeding with the Mass.

"This virus doesn't care if people are at Mass or not. It loves groups of people. With a big congregation we've got the safety of the whole congregation to consider," he said.

The priest said he was earlier in conversation with a parishioner who observed that scanning both the Covid sign and then having to have her My Vaccine Pass scanned is going to take a bit longer to get into Church.

"Hope you have lots of Covid signs and lots of people scanning, and it's not raining," she told her parish priest.

The priest said his parishioner is picking there is going to be chaos.

"Hardly a vote of confidence," he said.

The experience of Church ministers is being echoed by Francis Tipene of Tipene Funerals.

He's questioning whether the My Vaccine Pass and traffic light system will make things easier for grieving whanau or more difficult.

Covid has meant significant change for tangi - from storing tupapaku for weeks on end in the hopes of alert level shifts to allow for a tangi to having whaikorero on Zoom. Many have found this very difficult.

Tipene says navigating through the policy changes has not only been tough on them but on the people they serve.

The church ministers' confusion is not helped by the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins both saying venue organisers requiring Covid-19 vaccination passes will be able to check them visually instead of using an official app if they wish to, but the Ministry of Health disagreeing saying that vaccination passes would need to be scanned to allow entry.

"Visually checking passes isn't enough to allow entry. Scanning someone's pass proves that it is authentic, valid and has not expired," said the Ministry of Health on its website.

However, on Wednesday Adern contradicted the Ministry of Health.

"You can sight, of course, someone's vaccine pass. If you have any concerns, you can ask for verifying ID if you would like," she said.

"[The app is] a handy tool to use because it gives you confidence that the pass you're being shown is indeed a valid pass, but it's not a requirement," she said.

On Wednesday night, the Government passed 'under urgency' legislation that seriously curbs the freedoms of unvaccinated people.

The legislation was passed without the usual parliamentary scrutiny, even drawing criticism from the government's Speaker, Trevor Mallard.

Sources

• Supplied
• Stuff
• RNZ
• Stuff
• RNZ
• NZ Herald
• Stuff
• Stuff
• Stuff

While the government denies it, others clearly believe it is at least a possibility.

The uncertainty is troubling. If elimination fails or is abandoned, it would suggest we have not learnt the lessons of history, particularly when it comes to our more vulnerable populations.

In 1918, the mortality rate among Maori from the influenza pandemic was eight times that of Europeans.

The avoidable introduction of influenza to Samoa from Aotearoa resulted in the deaths of about 22% of the population.

Similar observations were seen in subsequent influenza outbreaks in Aotearoa in 1957 and 2009 for both Maori and Pasifika people. These trends are well known and documented.

And yet, despite concerns we could see the same thing happen again, there have been repeated claims that an elimination strategy cannot succeed.

Some business owners, politicians and media commentators have called for a change in approach that would see Aotearoa "learn to live with the virus".

This is premature and likely to expose vulnerable members of our communities to the disease.

Abandoning the elimination strategy while vaccine coverage rates remain low among the most vulnerable people would be reckless and irresponsible. In short, more Maori and Pasifika people would die.

Far better will be to stick to the original plan that has served the country well, lift vaccination coverage rates with more urgency, and revise the strategy when vaccination rates among Maori and Pasifika people are as high as possible - no less than 90%.

Least worst options

After 18 months of dealing with the pandemic, it's important to remember that Aotearoa's response has been based on sound science and strong political leadership.

The elimination strategy has proved effective at home and been admired internationally.

Of course, it has come with a price.

In particular, the restrictions have had a major impact on small businesses and personal incomes, student life and learning, and well-being in general.

Many families have needed additional food parcels and social support, and there are reports of an increasing incidence of family harm.

The latest Delta outbreak has also seen the longest level 4 lockdown in Auckland, with at least two further weeks at level 3, and there is no doubt many people are struggling to cope with the restrictions.

The "long tail" of infections will test everyone further.

There is no easy way to protect the most vulnerable people from the life-threatening risk of Covid-19, and the likely impact on the public health system if it were to get out of control. The alternative, however, is worse.

We know Maori and Pasifika people are most at risk of infection from Covid-19, of being hospitalised and of dying from the disease. Various studies have confirmed this, but we also must acknowledge why - entrenched socioeconomic disadvantage, overcrowded housing and higher prevalence of underlying health conditions.

More than 50% of all new cases in the current outbreak are among Pasifika people and the number of new cases among Maori is increasing. If and when the pandemic is over, the implications of these socioeconomic factors must be part of any review of the pandemic strategy.

Lowest vaccination rates, highest risk

Furthermore, the national vaccination rollout has again shown up the chronic entrenched inequities in the health system.

While the rollout is finally gaining momentum, with more and better options offered by and for Maori and Pasifika people, their comparative vaccination rates have lagged significantly.

Community leaders and health professionals have long called for Maori and Pasifika vaccination to be prioritised.

But the official rhetoric has not been matched by the reality, as evidenced by our most at-risk communities still having the lowest vaccination coverage rates in the country.

Te Ropu Whakakaupapa Uruta (the National Maori Pandemic Group) and the Pasifika Medical Association have repeatedly called for their communities to be empowered and resourced to own, lead and deliver vaccination rollouts in ways that work for their communities.

Te Ropu Whakakaupapa Uruta have also said Auckland should have remained at level 4, with the border extended to include the areas of concern in the Waikato.

As has been pointed out by those closest to those communities, however, their advice has consistently not been heeded.

The resulting delays only risk increasing the need for the kinds of lockdowns and restrictions everyone must endure until vaccination rates are higher.

There is a reason we do not hear many voices in Maori and Pasifika communities asking for an end to elimination.

Left unchecked, COVID-19 disproportionately affects minority communities and the most vulnerable.

"Living with the virus" effectively means some people dying with it.

We know who many of them would be.

• Collin Tukuitonga Associate Dean Pacific and Associate Professor of Public Health, University of Auckland.
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

At the end of June, it looked like the US was about to pass a remarkable milestone in its fight against the coronavirus.

After plummeting for months, the seven-day average of new COVID-19 cases appeared poised to drop below 10,000 for the first time since March 2020.

That day never came. Instead, cases began rising and had been going up ever since.

New cases are now back to 118,000 a day - the highest since February when only a small proportion of the country was vaccinated against the virus.

Other countries such as Britain and Israel have experienced big increases in cases in recent months. But, thanks to their high vaccination rates, the surges did not lead to a big increase in deaths.

It's a different story in the US. After falling as low as 180 in early July, the average number of daily deaths is back at more than 600 and climbing rapidly.

On Tuesday, US time, the country recorded 1049 COVID-19 deaths, the most since March.

The reason is simple, tragic and entirely preventable. Not enough Americans have been willing to get vaccinated, despite having access to an abundance of free and stunningly effective vaccines.

Media outlets across the country are full of stories of Americans fighting for their lives in hospital and expressing regret at not getting vaccinated when they had the chance.

"I messed up big time, guys," Virginia father, Travis Campbell, said through an oxygen mask in a video posted to Facebook last week. "I didn't get the vaccine ... I made a mistake, I admit it."

Compare the US to Canada, which has no vaccine manufacturing capacity and had to beg to gain access to America's stockpile of unused AstraZeneca vaccines.

At the end of May, just 6 per cent of Canadians had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to 41 per cent of Americans.

Just two months later, Canada had overtaken its neighbour: 63 per cent of Canadians are now fully vaccinated compared to 51 per cent of Americans.

Forget so-called vaccine hesitancy; America is now in the grip of outright vaccine refusal.

Americans have been offered all manner of incentives to get vaccinated, from free beer to doughnuts and even guns.

Yet 30 per cent of the adult population has declined - a far higher level of resistance than comparable countries such as Canada, Britain and, based on trends, Australia.

Communities with large numbers of white conservatives and African Americans stand out for their low vaccination rates.

Loopy conspiracies that the vaccines contain microchips or make you infertile get a lot of attention when explaining vaccine refusal.

But something else was at play in late June when The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age visited Mississippi, the state with the lowest vaccination rate in the nation.

Some hold-outs were ideologically opposed conservatives; others were lazy, apathetic or worried about potential side effects. What they all had in common was that they perceived getting vaccinated as an entirely personal decision about what they put into their bodies.

There was no sense that they had a role to play in a shared, nationwide effort to prevent the spread of the virus and prevent people from dying.

The dark side of American individualism and liberty is selfishness and a lack of empathy.

As a result, vaccinated Americans feel increasingly angry at their fellow citizens for refusing to get the jab. The sense of bliss and relief of just a few months ago is quickly giving way to fear and frustration. Continue reading

Their campaign aims to fight against "echo chambers" of misinformation on social media amongst their communities.

"We know that 80 percent of Pasifika communities have some sort of affiliation with churches, church communities," says John Kleinsman, director of the Catholic Church's The Nathaniel Centre for Bioethics.

Kleinsman was talking on Newhub with Duncan Garner.

Using church communities to preach the good word about getting inoculated establishes a useful way to contact those who have not yet been inoculated, says Kleinsman.

"Our networks, we're able to use those to reach those people and get the message through to those people," he said, speaking of a combined church initiative in Newtown, Wellington.

Of concern is the possibility that vaccine uptake amongst Pasifika and Maori might be lagging behind other ethnicities, despite being more likely to be in a priority group.

Many older Maori and Pasifika as well as their carers were included in Group 2 for their COVID jabs (immediately behind priority staff like border workers).

Group 3 (the next cab off the rank) included people with underlying health conditions, which are typically more prevalent in Maori and Pasifika than others.

Just 6.1 percent of doses administered to date have gone to Pasifika, despite making up 7.4 percent of the population; and just 9 percent to Maori, despite being more than 16 percent of the population.

Whilst there might be other demographic reasons these numbers are lagging - such as the fact a high percentage of Maori and Pasifika are young, and still ineligible for the vaccine - Kleinsman suspects anti-vaccination misinformation and lies are creating hesitancy.

Kleinsman told Newshub that anti-vaccination activists have upped their activities in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and while experts have repeatedly debunked the claims, the message doesn't appear to be getting through to some communities.

Source

• Newshub

But to ensure vital health information reaches everyone in our community, we need a range of spokespeople, including religious and community leaders.

However, church leaders have expressed concerns some Christians may face an "ethical dilemma" over Australia's COVID-19 vaccination plans.

Sydney's Catholic and Anglican Archbishops and the leader of Australia's Greek Orthodox church told Prime Minister Scott Morrison that the University of Oxford's candidate vaccine, set to be given to Australians if it proves successful, is potentially problematic because its production method relies on cell lines from an electively aborted foetus.

There are many examples of religious community leaders helping vaccination programs.

I experienced this first-hand in 2013, when I supported a catch-up immunisation clinic at a large Samoan church in Western Sydney, which aimed to reduce the measles risk among the Pacific Islander community.

One community member who participated told me: "Most Pacific island people go to church. Maybe this is one of the best channels to go through. Ministers, because their job is spiritual health as well, will give out information for the health of their people."

That was the first time an Australian church had hosted an immunisation clinic. But the idea of religion crossing over with immunisation is not new.

The earliest recorded example of "variolation" (or inoculation) was an 11th-century Buddhist nun's innovative practice: She ground scabs taken from a person infected with smallpox (variola) into a powder, and then blew it into the nostrils of a non-immune person to induce immunity.

Several centuries on, things are more vexed.

While major faith traditions endorse the principles supporting the public health goals of vaccination, hesitancy has been documented at an individual clergy level, and concerns have been raised at an organisation level from time to time.

The church leaders who wrote to Morrison have asked the government not to pressure Australians to use the vaccine if it goes against their religious or moral beliefs.

Sydney's Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher called on the government to pursue arrangements for alternative vaccines that do not involve the foetus-derived cell lines.

What's a cell line anyway?

A cell line is a population of cells that is grown continuously in the laboratory for extended periods.

Once established, cell lines have an unlimited lifespan and so are a renewable and reliable system for growing viruses.

Some cell lines, called human diploid cell lines WI-38 and MRC-5, came from three abortions performed for medical reasons (including psychiatric reasons) in the 1960s.

These abortions were not done for the purpose of harvesting the cells.

Cells taken from these cell lines are used to grow the virus, but are then discarded and not included in the vaccine formulation.

In Australia, several licensed vaccines have been manufactured using cell lines that originally came from this foetal tissue from the 1960s. This includes the vaccines against rubella, hepatitis A, varicella (chickenpox), and rabies.

The Catholic church has previously grappled with this issue.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, ethicists at the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life declared the abortions from which the cell lines were derived were events that occurred in the past.

Most importantly, they acknowledged the intent of the abortions was not to produce the cell lines, and therefore being immunised is a morally separate event from the abortions themselves.

In 2017, the Pontifical Academy for Life reiterated this stance, stating: …we believe that all clinically recommended vaccinations can be used with a clear conscience and that the use of such vaccines does not signify some sort of cooperation with voluntary abortion.

Moreover, it concluded there is a "moral responsibility to vaccinate […] to avoid serious health risks for children and the general population".

Health comes first

Supporting public health goals is the key principle previously applied by major faith institutions in situations where ethical issues around vaccination have been raised.

One previous example is the use of gelatin - which is made from pig skin or bones and is forbidden as a food by some religions - in vaccine and medicine capsules.

After reflecting on the issue, the Kuwait-based Islamic Organization for Medical Sciences declared in 1995: …the gelatin formed as a result of the transformation of the bones, skin and tendons of a judicially impure animal is pure, and it is judicially permissible to eat it.

The Grand Mufti of Australia released a letter in 2013 supporting this judgement, ruling it is acceptable for Australian Muslims to take vaccines containing pork-derived gelatin.

In the case of both gelatin and human cell lines, religious organisations have called on vaccine manufacturers to use alternative methods where possible.

Yet given the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic, it may not be feasible or ethical to delay or seek alternative vaccines.

This sentiment was outlined by Reverend Kevin McGovern, a Catholic priest and adjunct lecturer at the Australian Catholic University and the Catholic Theological College, in a recent piece for the ABC: Developing ethically uncompromised cell lines and vaccines is important. In the crisis of this pandemic, developing and using an effective vaccine so as to save lives is even more important.

While this article is reflecting on religious organisations and vaccination, at an individual level it's important to note that people who profess to decline vaccines for religious reasons may, in fact, be motivated not by theological concerns but by their own personal views about vaccine safety, perhaps influenced and echoed by others in their clustered social networks.

For example, US-based studies have suggested some parents circumvent vaccine requirements by claiming religious exemptions, in the absence of a personal belief alternative.

To move forward, it's important public health officials work with religious leaders to ensure they are equipped with accurate information about the potential COVID-19 vaccine, its development process and the rationale for its use. Engaging these leaders and building trust are crucial steps into the intersection of religion and vaccination.

• Holly Seale is a Senior Lecturer at UNSW. She has previously received funding from NHMRC and from vaccine manufacturers for investigator-driven research. She is Deputy Chair of the Collaboration on Social Science and Immunisation. She does not hold any religious affiliation or funding, nor endorse any religious organisation.
• The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of CathNews.

New Zealand is in the midst of a huge surge in measles cases, with almost 900 in Auckland, and more than 1100 confirmed cases notified across the country.

Just 53 of the people who caught measles this year had been vaccinated.

O'Sullivan blames Andrew Wakefield - a struck-off doctor responsible for the fraudulent study that claimed the MMR vaccine caused autism - for the 300 per cent increase in cases of measles across the globe in the past 12 months.

"Now what I say to anti-vaxxers is, 'Go live on an island'" says O'Sullivan.

Last week he reiterated his call for New Zealand to adopt Australia's "no jab, no pay" strategy and introduce a higher tax rate for those who do not vaccinate their children.

But the Government says there's no evidence to show sanctions or compulsion around vaccinations is effective.

In a statement to Stuff, the Associate Health Minister Julie Anne Genter said there was a broad political agreement that children should not be punished for parents' choices.

O'Sullivan has been a long-time advocate for vaccination.

In 2017 he stormed a screening of the anti-vaccination movie Vaxxed, telling the audience they were responsible for children dying.

He has called for all parents to be forced to vaccinate as far back as 2015 when Australia first brought in the no jab, no pay policy.

The Ministry of Health's director-general Ashley Bloomfield last week said much of New Zealand's shortfall in vaccination rates were related to vaccine hesitancy and access issues rather than being directly due to anti-vaxxer sentiment.

However, the University of Auckland's vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris said vaccine hesitancy was a direct result of anti-vaxxers activities.

Source

• newstalkzb.co.nz
• stuff.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: thespinoff.co.nz

But critics say such compulsion is contrary to moral advice given by a pontifical academy.

The Church has moral difficulties with certain vaccines, the cell lines for which were originally derived from the cells of aborted foetuses several decades ago.

The moral situation of use of such vaccines was covered by the Pontifical Academy for Life in a 2005 response.

The response stated that parents could be justified in allowing use of such vaccines if there was no other way to protect their children from serious disease.

However, the Vatican document said that parents who chose vaccination would have a moral duty "to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems".

Continue reading

The vaccination campaign, sponsored by the World Health Organisation and UNICEF, is aimed at girls and women of reproductive age.

The bishops said four independent laboratory tests in Kenya and elsewhere showed the vaccine was laced with the contraceptive hormone Beta-HCG.

The Kenyan government has been accused of a secret plan to sterilise women and control population growth.

But Kenya's director of medical services said other testing showed no trace of Beta-HCG.

He promised action against Bishop Stephen Karanja of the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, whom he blamed for raising false alarms against the vaccine.

Continue reading

The Japanese government's decision is the result of 1,968 reported cases of possible side effects, 43 of which have been examined by a health ministry task force. Since 2010, 3.28 million Japanese women have received the human papillomavirus vaccination.

In the United States, on the other hand, there's good news with virus thought to be half as common as it used to be, despite only about a third of young women receiving the full vaccine course of three shots.

So, what are we to make of the vaccine? Here are answers to four common questions about it, based on a research paper I recently published with two co-authors.

Does the vaccine prevent infection with the virus?

Both the human papillomavirus vaccines (Gardasil and Cervarix) have been shown to reduce the virus infection rate by over 90%. This reduction is maintained for at least five years.

The catch (and there's always a catch) is that for the vaccine to be this effective, it has to be given to people who have not been exposed to the virus.

This is why the vaccine is given to 12 to 13-year-olds in Australia and 14 to 19-year-olds in the United States.

Will the vaccine cause a rise in other HPV types?

The human papillomavirus vaccines available in Australia target two (types 16 and 18) of the 15 high-risk virus strains associated with cancer.

Questions have been asked about whether one or more of the remaining 13 cancer-causing virus types will become more common to "fill the gap" left by their reduction. Continue reading

Sources

• The Conversation
• Image: Women's Health