The certificate and fatigue descend on Switzerland Article pagination

Fatigue is the word that seems to impose itself. Fatigue of the vaccinated who do not understand the position of the non-vaccinated minority, fatigue of this same minority in the face of the introduction of the covid certificate in all areas of daily life. And tired of seeing so many debates get out of hand on social networks.

This fatigue should not be underestimated, it plays a crucial role in healthcare institutions, but also with the women and politicians who have been managing this crisis for 18 months. Faced with this fatigue, we need more empathy and benevolence in the debate.

I attempt here to pose some thoughts, while referring to other posts for the full argument.

Basic conviction : the vaccine is an excellent thing, as individual prevention and as a solidarity contribution. Nevertheless, we have, as a society, chosen not to make vaccination compulsory. There is therefore a freedom not to be vaccinated. This freedom must be protected, even if the reasons given for not getting vaccinated appear irrational (full argument here). The non-vaccinated are “free-riders”: they take advantage of the effort made by the vaccinated to protect society. An alternative model has just been launched in the USA where vaccination is becoming compulsory for many population groups. For the moment, Switzerland does not seem to want to follow this lead but the American choice will certainly move the lines here as well.

The freedom to get vaccinated is not being attacked head-on, but from all sides . We must appeal to honesty here: if it becomes impossible to live a normal life without showing the certificate and that individual tests are chargeable (from October 1), then vaccination becomes de facto compulsory. To judge this de facto obligatory character, the criterion is not what is possible, but what is normal. It is possible to live like a hermit, recluse in his apartment, without doing any activity. But this should not be the criterion for judging when the certificate becomes de facto compulsory. Conversely, the criterion should be that of a “normal” life.

Since the last announcements by the Federal Council, cultural and sporting activities, visits to care institutions and access to university have become dependent on the certificate. Access to work also becomes the subject of the certificate, even if the terms and conditions are not conspicuous by their clarity. The ordinance thus provides that employers can “request the certificate if this allows them to define appropriate protective measures or implement screening plans”. There is little doubt that some employers will request the certificate as early as Monday 13 september. Will non-certified people have to stay in the home office? Can they come by wearing a mask? What will be the new dynamics in the teams? How to ensure the confidentiality of medical data? So many puzzles...

Where has the “green domain” gone? In its first communication on the certificate in May 2021, the Federal Council distinguished 3 areas: green, orange and red. The green domain was protected from using the certificate. It included private and religious events, public transport, businesses, the workplace or schools. These areas were special because they were “either state tasks or fundamental rights and fundamental freedoms”. Today, the university and the workplace are no longer protected. There is an unstoppable, almost frightening force in the type of arguments in favor of extending the covid certificate. “It is possible to lead a normal life without doing X” (replace X with any activity) and “People can go get vaccinated, it's their fault/responsibility if they refuse this certificate”. The danger does not come from a single activity which would be made impossible (eg visiting a discotheque during the summer), but from the accumulation of activities dependent on the certificate. Each activity taken for itself seems acceptable but, taken end to end, it encompasses the whole of everyday life.

Here too, we have to be honest: public transport and schools for those over 16 are hanging by a thread. The canton of Grisons had also asked to study the possibility of using the certificate in public transport. Why not ? It is possible to live normally without taking the train and people just have to get vaccinated. Faced with this temptation of the “slippery slope”, the political question here is that of limits: what is the zone that we will refuse to cross and, above all, why?

The tests are the keystone of the system : we will rightly retort that it is not necessary to be vaccinated and that it is enough to test yourself. It follows that the question of the price of the tests (and their reimbursement) becomes key (for the time being around 50.- for a quick test). In general, this reimbursement should be seen as an investment made by the majority to allow the minority of non-vaccinated people to continue to exercise the freedom that society recognizes for them. This is especially true when very important assets are at stake (like college or work). Wherever the requirement for the certificate is in fact equivalent to an obligation to vaccinate, the tests should be reimbursed. It would also be interesting to know how much all the tests paid for by the Confederation have cost since the beginning of 2021. This would allow for a more quantified debate.

“Either the certificate or the closure”

It will be opposed that all this is very nice, but that the alternative which is offered to us is this: either the certificate, or the generalized closure.

Who decides on the terms of the alternative controls the debate : the turn of the current debate reminds us that whoever formulates the negotiation alternative masters the debate, a great classic in the art of negotiation.

Before discussing the alternative, we must therefore ask ourselves if the two proposed terms are the right ones . Here, the proposed terms are misleading because, on the one hand, the key question lies in the conditions of access to the certificate, in particular the question of reimbursement. It is therefore necessary to ask “which certificate?”. On the other hand, as recalled by the canton of Vaud in its position during the last consultation, the certificate should be a measure of last resort. It is therefore necessary to add to the alternative all the different and less restrictive measures which would make it possible to achieve the objective of protection.

=> In my opinion, the alternative that we should discuss is therefore – at least – this: certificate (without tests reimbursed) or certificate (with tests reimbursed) or other equivalent measures or closure. Again, the political question that arises is that of the investment made (and by whom) in terms of reimbursement of the tests.

That being said, the use of the certificate in each of the proposed areas should be subject to the same analysis grid.

1. Is the area of ​​activity subject to the certificate (eg cafes and restaurants, or performance halls, or sports activities) a place of contagion? This question is empirical and clearly cannot be answered perfectly. These figures – or at least clusters of indices – should nevertheless provide the basic justification for the use of the certificate. If the area of ​​activity concerned is not a place of contagion (thanks to the measures currently in force or because of the type of activity), then there is no justification for imposing the certificate.
2. Is the introduction of the certificate in a field of activity an ultima ratio measure? Are there other measures capable of achieving the same objective, while being less restrictive in the perspective of the freedom not to be vaccinated?

These two conditions should make it possible to avoid imposing a certificate for areas of activity with very few infections. Assuming that 80% of infections take place at school, on public transport or in private meetings, imposing the certificate for all other areas would be useless. If anyone here has empirical studies capable of invalidating this hypothesis, I am interested.

Or should we argue as Alain Berset did in the spring of 2020 with the objective of a general slowdown in all social activities? Change is far from trivial. To follow this line, the certificate becomes the tool that will slow down social contacts. In general, I think – and I hope! – that we have acquired enough experience and data to start a more detailed discussion on the different areas of activity (thus avoiding a general reduction). Moreover, it does not seem to me legitimate to impose the certificate in a preventive way and/or without an almost clear empirical basis. To accept this argument would indeed be giving complete blank checks to the use of the certificate in all areas of activity.

As a last option, it remains to consider that the certificate is only a pressure tool to encourage vaccination. We are talking here about a particularly strong “nudge”. When daily life becomes de facto impossible, the term “nudge” seems to me to be an abuse of language. One can nevertheless wonder if the certificate is a public policy tool that should be used for this purpose (spoiler: I think not). Again, this approach would have the advantage of honesty, an essential value in today's public debate.