Not quite the same stance required by alternative vaccines, News News & Top Stories


I looked at the article “Variety of vaccine types can be beneficial, expert says” (June 2).

The Ministry of Health has said it will allow unregistered new Covid-19 vaccines to be supplied to Singaporeans through the private healthcare sector, and that the Government will not lend the cost of the vaccines.

Those who get these jabs will also not be eligible for the Vaccine Injury Financial Assistance Program for Covid-19 Vaccination.

I am trying to understand the Government’s position on these alternative vaccines.

If the Government allows people to take these alternative vaccines (subject of course in individual examinations by private healthcare physicians), it should be considered that these vaccines are safe and useful, especially for those who cannot drink both. approved vaccine for medical reasons. factors.

If so, why does it restrict both incentives – subsidy assistance program and financial assistance – to those who receive these vaccines?

Perhaps the Government is trying to encourage people to get two approved vaccines with a much higher rate of effectiveness, which is understandable for the majority of the population. However, for individuals who cannot take these vaccines for medical reasons, why should they be punished for taking alternative vaccines?

Why does the Government allow alternative vaccines to be provided through the private health sector but qualify its approval by restricting the privileges granted to recipients of the two approved vaccines?

Are the 30,000 people here who cannot take the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines subject to any risks that the Government does not want?

We appreciate the less consistent stance from the authorities, so 30,000 people can decide more on whether to take alternative vaccines or never get vaccinated.

Tan San Ling |





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *