The High Court has rejected a bid by political activist Han Hui Hui and five others to quell government-deployed COVID-19 vaccine-related measures.

Some of the applications requested the court to declare some directives “illegal” or “irrational.”

In Judge Dedar Singh Gill’s decision released Thursday (June 16), he rejected the applicant’s allegations, and the statistics they cited were inaccurate and based on “unstable assumptions.” He added that he was.

The applicant was trying to revoke the government’s recommendation that the employer could optionally dismiss unvaccinated staff.

They also applied to revoke the “directive” from the Ministry of Health (MOH). It states that COVID-19 patients who are not vaccinated by choice will have to pay the full cost of treatment.

In October last year, authorities said employers could terminate the hiring of workers as a last resort if alternative jobs could not be arranged. Also, from December 8, 2021, it was announced that all COVID-19 patients who were not vaccinated by choice will have to pay their own medical expenses if they are admitted to a hospital or COVID-19 treatment facility. I did.

“It turns out that (Ministry Task Force) and MOH have acted in good faith by relying on appropriate reasons supported by objective evidence. They consider relevant considerations. We do not take into account or take into account irrelevant considerations, “Judge Gil said.

He supports the Multi-Ministry Task Force and the Ministry of Health to review independent clinical studies establishing vaccine efficacy and “encourage” vaccination to minimize risk to society as a whole. He added that it was clear that the situation was weighed.

Judge Gil also said that if an applicant submits that if infected with COVID-19, an unvaccinated person of choice should remain to seek a full medical subsidy, it will be ” It’s not a court issue. “

With the exception of Mr. Han, the other five applicants nominated in the ruling were Sng Su Hui, Yeo Sheau Yuen, Lim Beng Kwang, Lawrence Simon Anthony and Muhammad Faizal Mustafa.

The six applicants were represented by lawyer and opposition politician Lim Tean.

Distorted, misleading statistics

Judge Gil ruled that the October recommendation was “less susceptible to judicial review.” This recommendation was “guidance issued independently of statutory authority and has no legal effect.”

Applicants also quoted statistics calculated by themselves based on publicly available data from the Ministry of Health regarding COVID-19 deaths and critically ill patients.

They claimed that as of December 5, last year, vaccinated people died of COVID-19 compared to unvaccinated people.

They also argued that in the intensive care unit, more people were severely vaccinated with COVID-19 than those who were not vaccinated.

He also claimed that data published on the MOH website on April 10, this year, show that “no one in the ICU is over 70 years old and has not been completely vaccinated.”

Based on the statistics, the applicant claimed that the government’s announcement had no rational or rational reason and was “disadvantageous” as a result of vaccine-related regulations.

Attorneys at the Attorney-at-Law Office (AGC) claimed that the applicant’s challenge was “based only on biased statistics and misreported statistics.”

“Death and (serious) statistics are based on certain assumptions that are not fully explained or are incorrect.”

Even if the court accepts their calculations, the statistics only include the live numbers of dead or severely ill patients and do not consider a larger eligible fully vaccinated population compared to unvaccinated patients.

Dr. Heng Mok Kwee Derrick, Deputy Director of MOH’s Medical Services (Public Health Group), said that seriously ill deaths and patients from COVID-19 were fully vaccinated compared to the fully vaccinated population. We have reproduced the data showing that there are more non-vaccinated groups. ..

AGC also noted that the method by which applicants attempted to use the April 10 statistics was “misunderstanding.”

They argued that the statistics the applicant relied on spanned a limited period of time, and that sufficient data points to “support policymaking” needed a longer time frame.

Judge Gil also added that a “narrow group” of completely unvaccinated people over the age of 70 is “not a good representative” of the entire population of unvaccinated people.

“It is more accurate to compare the incidence of (severe) cases in the entire fully vaccinated population and the entire non-vaccinated population,” he said.

Judge Gil said he would hear individual submissions on the question of who would pay the proceedings in this case.

Source link

Previous articleBanks make it completely clear that they will launch a new app comparable to Revolut
Next articleHospitals regain mask requirements due to increased COVID cases