PN plays with fire as it toys with anti-vax vote

On Sunday Nationalist Party leader Bernard Grech issued the strongest statement yet against vaccine rules, which came in place on Monday, describing them as an “inquisition against human rights”.

“As of tomorrow, thousands of people will be unable to go to work, visit a restaurant or attend social activities that help their mental health,” Grech said on Net TV. “We are speaking to these people because they have rights too, without sending a message that the vaccine isn’t effective.”

This statement contrasted with his previous statement on 8 January that he endorsed upcoming rules to limit entry to restaurants, bars, gyms, sports events and other venues to adequately vaccinated people. “We’re making it clear that we follow the health authorities’ official instructions as they have all the details in hand, and we will keep endorsing official decisions”.

So what is the logic behind an abrupt change in the party’s stance, from a cautious one in line with mainstream European governments, to one which recognises refusal to vaccinate as a human right?

Anti-vaxxers may be one of those boisterous ‘minorities’ which can potentially shift their vote because of one single overriding issue. Bt the PN risks getting bogged down in a toxic swamp of irrationality by emboldening a motley crew of right-wing, libertarian or simply misinformed activists over which it has no control and whose frame of mind is alien in a society which on COVID, has been largely deferential to science.

Everyone knows that the vast majority of people have no problem with vaccine mandates for entry to restaurants and gyms. But it is the small minority who feel their rights are being trampled on which may change their vote on the basis of this issue.

The PN media has been quick to point out support for Grech’s stance from people who describe themselves as die-hard Labourites. The PN may well be making an electoral calculation based on the mood of a social media bubble, which responded well to Grech’s U-turn

But harnessing a crowd prone to believe in conspiracy theories and one which includes immigrant bashers and religious fundamentalists, may be an impossible task for a traditionally, centrist party like the PN which necessarily depends on support of middle-of-the-road voters who have no issue with vaccines.

One strong argument justifying the PN’s stance is that creating a two-tier society where access to certain public places is limited by booster certificates may actually create a social ghetto where irrationality thrives even more than today. Moreover the measures are being imposed at a juncture where most people have voluntarily taken the booster without being forced to do so, and where hospitalisations are already on the low side.

So the PN can present a pragmatic argument that at this stage vaccine mandates may be counter-productive. The problem for the PN is that its criticism goes beyond pragmatism. Indeed it verges on an ideological argument that non-vaccinated people should under no circumstance face any limitation on their freedom... even if they risk undermining the freedom of others, or contribute to a surge that overwhelms health services (which would inevitably hit hard on the most vulnerable categories).

This is why Bernard Grech’s choice of words in describing vaccine mandates as a violation of human rights, is significant.

The PN’s stance also weakens the political and social consensus for temporary measures sanctioned by public health officials, and risks legitimising a misinformed choice. So far, the restrictions imposed have been measured. Unlike Austria, which intends to make vaccination mandatory, Malta has not made vaccines mandatory for any category.

Neither has it restricted access to essential services like public transport and retail to the vaccinated, as happens in countries like Italy.

And Grech may well be playing with fire by pandering to a motley crew which is resented by the rest of society, for not respecting a social pact which most have voluntarily accepted on the basis of mainstream scientific opinion.

PN may appeal to a segment of anti-establishment voters. But in so doing it risks undermining support among older and more educated voters who feel threatened by the anti-vax crowd

By its nature the PN is not an anti-establishment populist party but a party aspiring to govern responsibly in a way which safeguards basic public safety. Its voting base is mainly composed of a centrist cohort of voters which is alien to the esoteric ecosystem in which anti-vaxxers thrive.

Moreover of crucial importance to the PN is retaining and consolidating support among elderly voters who feel most threatened by COVID-19 because they are most at risk of dying from it, and therefore more likely to expect compliance with vaccination.

The PN is already faced with a very high abstention rate among tertiary-educated voters, a category that has been traditionally inclined to vote for it. The latest MaltaToday survey shows that 39% of tertiary-educated voters are either still undecided or intent on not voting. While this category probably also includes some vaccine sceptics, educated people the world over tend to have a greater trust in science and who are averse to irrational choices and Trumpism.

The PN has traditionally given prominence to the ‘common good’ in arguments on civil liberties and bodily autonomy, even where such rights pose no direct threat to the physical wellbeing of other citizens. In this case it risks alienating both enlightened conservatives and social liberals who defer to public health authorities

The PN’s stance against limited vaccine mandates aimed at encouraging people to take their vaccine and booster shots, opens an ideological can of worms for a party which stood for the defense of the ‘common good’ on other several other issues like abortion and the recreational use of cannabis.

The advocacy of body autonomy when it comes to vaccine choices, contrasts with the party’s stance against a law which allows people to smoke cannabis in their own home, or in its opposition to advocates of safe access to abortion who have been marginalized from the party.

In reality the PN is not ideologically averse to limiting people’s freedoms whenever it thinks this negatively impacts on society at large, particularly when such rights challenge its conservative beliefs and upset the traditional order.

But by recognising refusal to take a vaccine or a booster shot as a ‘human right’, the PN is not just undermining the notion that rights can be limited if the health of others is threatened by misinformed choices, but is engaging in à la carte liberalism, normalising the irrational choice of a minority, while still advocating the criminalisation of actions which pose no threat to the health of other citizens.

And by recognising the choice not to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a human right, a future PN government may well end up faced with parents who question other the need of other vaccines, including those mandatory for school attendance.

Bernard Grech scored his best polling scores a year ago when he stood out as the voice of caution against Abela’s reckless talk of a quick return to normality. Now he risks disorienting voters in an attempt to chase with the hounds and run with the hares

In the earlier stage of the pandemic, the PN was critical of Robert Abela’s over-optimistic declarations that dismissed the risk of further COVID waves and lifted measures in the summer of 2020. Grech’s own poll rating peaked in March in 2021 amidst an upsurge of cases, which many blamed on Abela’s reluctance to reintroduce restrictions. Even on the social media, it was people more inclined towards the PN who were advocating greater caution and who expressed fear of Labour succumbing to pressures by business interests to prematurely lift restrictions.

From then on, Abela deferred to the advice health authorities and has preferred to err on the side of caution. The abrupt conversion of the PN from a more cautious position to pandering to libertarians is bound to disorient voters.

The PN is right to note that circumstances on the ground have changed when compared to last year. But there is still great uncertainty on the future, which makes anti Vax talk dangerous and subversive

Surey the emergence of the Omicron variant, which is highly transmissible even amongst vaccinated people but apparently less lethal for those who have received their jab, has changed the rules of the game. For the first time since the outbreak started, an endgame is in sight.

As Anthony Fauci, an advisor to the US president noted in interview with Der Spiegel, the virus is evolving “into a much more prevalent but less severe infection” in a way that more people will get infected but won’t get seriously ill.

In this new scenario the PN has presented a strong case for shortening the mandatory quarantine to 5 days and for the legalisation of self-testing kits. Yet the main reason why hospitalisations have not increased dramatically despite an upsurge of Omicron cases, is that most people are now vaccinated and boosted.

In fact it is the unvaccinated who are now at greater risk of being hospitalised. By legitimising anti-vax choices, the PN risks eroding the consensus, which contributed to Malta’s relative success in combatting the virus possible.

It also fails to recognise the uncertainty of the present situation. As Anthony Fauci warned in the same interview it would be a mistake to say, “Oh, this is less severe, we are done with it... We might be done with it, but there’s no guarantee that we are”.

And since there are so many countries where the rate of vaccination is still low, the virus still has the opportunity to mutate, “and it remains conceivable that the next variant will have a high degree of transmissibility but also a high degree of severity”. This is why at this stage using the carrot and the stick to encourage vaccination remains crucial.

PN wants to portray itself as pro-business to harness support from businesses hindered by more bureaucracy and loss of unvaccinated potential clients. But government’s ‘carrot and stick’ approach has been crucial in a successful booster roll-out which may be key to the coveted return to normality, which businesses yearn for

Small businesses like family-owned bars and small cafes are now faced with the additional bureaucracy of having to check on whether clients are vaccinated or not.

It is also questionable why new measures apply to certain activities and business and not others like hospital visits, clothes shops and supermarkets.

Yet one cannot deny that the successful booster roll-out which the PN had actively supported, was partly the result of the ‘carrot and stick’ approach by government, and came in the wake of the pre-announced vaccine mandates.

In short less people would have taken the vaccine if they were not faced with any consequence. Business owners themselves may see the PN’s defence of individual freedom as an obstacle for the return to normality they yearn for.

Moreover the PN, which till some time ago was rightly advocating teleworking for workers, has overlooked the rights of vaccinated workers in establishments where they may be exposed to infection from both unvaccinated colleagues and clients.

Ultimately vaccination offers the strongest protection for those whose work exposes them to the greatest risk.