當年今日
關於我們

Death by vaccine? Who to blame for high-risk vaccinations? | Kay Lam

蘋果日報 2021/03/06 09:12


A 63-year-old patient with chronic medical conditions died within two days of receiving a dose of China’s Sinovac Biotech vaccine. The government earlier “omitted” to report the incident due to “human error,” and it was only after Apple Daily revealed the incident that a press conference was urgently held to acknowledge it. This led to arguments about whether vaccination is safe and whether it should be suspended for the elderly or chronically ill. However, on the internet, China’s Little Pink Army claimed that “Hong Kong independence had caused the death.” Moreover, they shifted the blame for the government’s decision to vaccinate high-risk people to “yellow medical personnel.” They said that “yellow medical personnel” of “Hong Kong independence” had deliberately administered vaccines to high-risk people who should not be vaccinated, in order to hurt the reputation of Chinese vaccines.
There is no doubt as to who intentionally spread this incredibly ridiculous fake news that is circulating widely on the internet in China. However, it is surprising that there are people that would believe this. Apart from the news blackout by the government, it is certainly also because, at present, vaccinations in mainland China are only administered to people aged 18-59, while the elderly, the young, and the chronically ill are not yet vaccinated. Therefore, mainland netizens questioned why Hong Kong is an exception to the rule when it is clear that all vaccines in China are not available to the elderly and the chronically ill, specifically those with diabetes.
This “independent” attitude of the SAR Government, which does not follow the guidelines of the Central Government, has immediately become evidence of “Hong Kong independence”! If we cannot oppose the government, then the responsibility will naturally fall on “yellow medical personnel” of “Hong Kong independence”! But wait a minute, the vaccine administered in Hong Kong was the Sinovac vaccine, while the one widely given in China is the Sinopharm vaccine. Although both are inactivated vaccines, they are two different things. Do the Chinese netizens believe that the truth is that the two are actually the same?
The confusion was further fueled by a group of Beijing loyalists in Hong Kong. Ever since the 71-year-old Tam Yiu-chung attended the National People’s Congress meeting in Beijing and received the Sinopharm vaccine, these people have been clamoring for the importation of this vaccine into the city to give Hong Kong people “another option.” However, the first batch of high-risk individuals to be vaccinated, such as the elderly, cannot be given the Sinopharm vaccine at all. Tam himself is older than the above-mentioned Chinese netizens’ “common understanding” that Sinopharm is not suitable for people over 60-years-old. So is it that even vaccines are “special” and safer for the leaders than for the ordinary Chinese people, or is it that Tam had volunteered to be a guinea pig and be the first to take the lead even when there was not enough clinical data to prove safety? There has been no clarification in this regard for a long time. This makes the question of whether the Chinese vaccines can be administered to the elderly and high-risk individuals has become an unanswerable one that can be interpreted in any way the officials deem fit.
Epidemiology experts from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) told the media that “patients with hypertension and diabetic complications that cannot be controlled by medication” are not suitable for vaccination. If Sinopharm, which is also an inactivated vaccine, is not acceptable, why is it acceptable for Sinovac? Is Sinovac better than Sinopharm? If so, then the Beijing loyalists in Hong Kong who insisted on bringing in Sinopharm that are not even allowed to be administered to the elderly in mainland China are simply creating confusion. Should the government not take the initiative to refute and clarify this? If Sinovac is not superior to Sinopharm, then is Hong Kong taking a risky move in allowing the elderly and the chronically ill to be inoculated? There are already rumors overseas that China is letting the elderly in third-world countries be guinea pigs. In that case, have seniors in Hong Kong become laboratory rats, therefore the city insists on giving them priority for inoculation regardless of the danger to their lives?
Regarding the death in question, the government’s expert committee unanimously concluded that “the death has no direct link to the vaccination,” (in that case, is there an indirect link?) and that a detailed postmortem report on the cause of death is needed to determine whether compensation should be paid and whether the vaccine had aggravated his illnesses. What is particularly revolting was that an expert said that “it is the patient’s responsibility to know his or her own health status.” If even health care professionals who specialize in vaccination are unable to understand and assess the risks, how can members of the public who do not have such professional knowledge?
Unlike in European countries, where there are clinics and health care providers in the vicinity of every citizen’s home, such long-term dedicated care is not possible in Hong Kong unless one is from the upper-middle-class or above and can afford a dedicated private doctor. So telling people to “understand” or assess their own health as to whether they are suitable for vaccination is simply the most irresponsible way and unrealistic thing to say to most elderly people in the lower-middle class!
Therefore, the simple question of whether the elderly, the weak and the chronically ill are suitable for vaccination has become a political issue because of the Chinese origin of the Sinovac vaccine, coupled with the top-to-bottom “we are grateful for the country’s support” operation of the SAR government. Despite knowing the risks, the cessation of using the Sinovac vaccine is no longer a failure of Sinovac Biotech, but a failure of the “country”! Who can the government fault for its own politicization of the scientific issue of vaccines earlier and for destroying its own credibility?
(Kay Lam, commentator)
Click here for Chinese version
We invite you to join the conversation by submitting columns to our opinion section: [email protected]
Apple Daily reserves the right to refuse, abridge, alter or edit guest opinion columns for accuracy, length, clarity, and style, and the right to withdraw and withhold columns based on the discretion of our editorial page editors.
The opinions of the writers do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorial board.
---------------------------------
Apple Daily’s all-new English Edition is now available on the mobile app: bit.ly/2yMMfQE
To download the latest version,
Or search Appledaily in App Store or Google Play