Epidemics can end in two ways – transmission is well controlled and new cases come down to zero, and the epidemic is history. The other is, the disease becomes an ongoing part of the infectious-disease landscape, or an endemic. The shift from pandemic to endemic entails a number of practical considerations for managing the epidemic and the way we live. But the shift is also psychological, as we will be deprived of the satisfaction that a clean pandemic end point would bring. Instead, societies will have to adapt to living alongside COVID-19 by making some deliberate choices about how to coexist.

Pandemics and endemics, in the past, have forced communities to move to newer ways of living and engaging in the world. Other major disruptions of life too have created new normal ways of engaging. Biblical stories are interesting examples. Adam and Eve had to build a new life in a new normal world outside Eden. Noah, Daniel and friends are examples of people who had to pick up the pieces and chart a new course, post flood and in captivity.

The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed more people than the Great War, known today as World War I, at somewhere between 20 and 40 million people. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four-years of the Black Death Bubonic Plague from 1347 to 1351. Nationalism pervaded as people accepted government authority. This allowed the public health departments to easily step in and implement their restrictive measures.

The war also gave science greater importance as governments relied on scientists, now armed with the new germ theory and the development of antiseptic surgery, to design vaccines and reduce mortalities of disease and battle wounds. The medical and scientific communities developed new theories and applied them to prevention, diagnostics and treatment of the influenza patients. Similarly, the black death saw the origin of hospices and later the hospitals that we know of now.

Mental health

The current pandemic that we are going through, with all the devastation it has left, has been traumatic for most of us. The physical effects of the virus, with high mortality, morbidity and many families losing their loved ones is the most evident. The economic, and the broader social impacts, the job losses, the migrants who have lost their livelihood, the relational issues with increasing domestic violence etc have been in the news and some of us might have experienced them too. Education related challenges and their impact on the system, the children and parents, is yet another major issue. Cross cutting through all these are mental wellbeing related issues.

A recent Lancet article reviews this well. The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on people’s mental health. Yet, the global extent of this impact remains unknown. The authors estimated a significant increase in the prevalence of both major depressive disorder (with an estimated additional 53·2 million cases worldwide—ie a 27·6% increase) and anxiety disorders (76·2 million additional cases—ie a 25·6% increase) since before the pandemic. Increased prevalence was seen among both males and females across the lifespan. These findings are all the more concerning because depressive and anxiety disorders were already leading causes of disability worldwide.

What is the new normal?

But at the same time, if you look around there have been many positive changes and trends emerging around us. The challenges that we as individuals, communities and humanity at large have faced, have been opportunities to engage in a new way. New Normal was a well-known term in business circles but has become the current buzz word. Most large organisations have ongoing research and strategy development teams looking at, sector by sector, what the new normal would look like. They engage in defining and understanding the new normal and coming up with strategies to limit the spread of disease at the same time mitigate impact on other sectors. Some of them have gone ahead and coined terms like ‘Next Normal’ or ‘Next Possible’ as buzz words, to drive a new direction for tomorrow.

A few trends are highlighted here. This is not a comprehensive list, but just a glimpse into the massive changes that are happening around us.

Faced with uncertainty and facing our mortality, the core issues of our life, existence and meaning, are in most people minds, though not publicly discussed. Questions like, if life is so uncertain and I do not have control of my life, how should I live, who am I, what am I in the world for, how can I find significance, have never been asked the way they are being asked this season.

Such questions are leading to many looking at job, career and work in diverse ways. Large numbers of people are leaving the formal work sector and are exploring more flexible ways of engaging. A Microsoft study discovered that 41% of workers worldwide are considering quitting their jobs described as the ‘Great Resignation’. The study shows that Gen Z is struggling more than other generations. Work life balance, being valued by managers, sense of belonging, a trusting and caring community at workplace, meaningful advancement of careers, flexibility and autonomy are what people are looking for. If this is not there, they are moving out to set up startups on their own.

For organisations and companies COVID-19 has brought on an even higher awareness that we cannot have healthy people on an unhealthy planet or workplace. So, companies are looking at climate change, healthy work environments recognising that if they do not address these, that they may not have a competitive advantage in the market.

With social and physical distancing becoming a norm, technology has become the driver of all engagements whether at personal, community, work or social levels. Digital systems and AI based algorithms helping in decision making and work has taken over many fields, including healthcare. Digital natives, children and young people find this easy, but digital immigrants, the seniors struggle with this.

But what is assuring is, we are not in this alone – there is a collective vulnerability of our world. The most macho leaders, the most high-tech scientific establishments, and the economic powers have all met their match in this lowly virus. It should make us humble — think about what we need to do differently; how we need to act and behave differently.

Adapting to the new normal

So how should we face and live in such a world? It was Darwin, who said, it is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent; it is the one most adaptable to change.

If we need to live as salt and light in this world, we need to cultivate some mindsets and lifestyles. Daniel and his friends in Babylon are a good case study to reflect on. Faced with a new normal they did a few things. They did not shy away from embracing the changes around them. They learnt the new language, immersed themselves in the new context and culture and lived lives of influence. They built their knowledge and expertise in new ways of engaging and excelled themselves in the spheres of engagement. They built their lives with a long-term perspective, Daniel serving three empires and four emperors over 70 years. But they held on to the core values and their faith as foundations. They supported each other, as they faced challenging contexts and situations.

A changing context of the world and new normal emerging around us, is a call for us to live such lives. Return and renew our commitment to the core foundations of our faith and values that should undergird our lives. At the same time, accept and embrace change and excel in new ways of engaging. We need to live our lives with a long-term life perspective – a long obedience in the same direction. Rooted in our relationship to God we need to build our dependence on the faith community that we are part of, to support and be supported in our journeys. Remember, God is still on the throne and in control. Such people and communities will continue to be salt and light in a world that is changing and losing its saltiness and light.

Mathew Santhosh Thomas is ICMDA Regional Secretary for South Asia

Published in Campus Link, UESI India bi-monthly magazine, Jan-Feb 2022, Volume 24, No.1. Home – Campus Link (campuslinklive.org), Republished with permission.

The recent announcement by the Australian government that increased freedoms would be available to citizens who were double vaccinated for COVID-19, or have exemption on medical grounds, has caused significant consternation in the Christian community. Issues of conscience and concerns about exclusion have been raised as reasons why such measures should not be introduced. This paper has been written to consider how Australian churches should respond.

WHY WE USE VACCINATIONS

There is no doubt that vaccination can be an effective public health strategy to curb the spread of infection. We each have a God‐given immune system that constantly protects us against infections. As we are exposed to a disease, our immune system naturally works to both defeat it and provide us with immunisation against a future attack.  However, diseases such as COVID-19 can be life-threatening or leave us with serious health problems. Prevention is always a safer option. Vaccination can help us avoid or reduce severity of future infection. Vaccines trigger our immune systems to respond and develop immunity to that disease, without having to actually experience it.

SAFETY AND EFFICACY

The COVID -19 virus is a new virus with new vaccines. Rare but serious adverse events associated with vaccine use have been reported: blood clots for the Astra Zeneca vaccine and cardiac problems with Pfizer. Early recommendations restricting the use of the Astra Zeneca vaccine were based on a risk-benefit calculation for the individual, a calculus which changed when the Delta variant of COVID-19 appeared. The Delta variant is highly transmissible, estimated to be 60% more transmissible than previous variants. In light of this new situation, COVID-19 vaccines are a safe and highly effective way to avoid serious illness, hospitalisation and death. The revision highlights one of the problems in this conversation – the constantly changing landscape as more is learnt about COVID-19 and its management, leading to changes in health advice, which can be seen as contradictory and confusing when in fact it is a commitment to keep up to date. This has led to some citizens being unsure of which authority to trust when it comes to health advice.

But we now have solid evidence of the impact of COVID vaccines from research involving millions of participants. Double vaccination has many proven benefits. It:

• Significantly reduces the risk of catching the virus
• Reduces the likelihood and severity of symptoms if you do catch it
• Makes hospitalisation 73% less likely
• Reduces the risk of developing Long COVID by 49%

However, while the rate of infection among those who are fully vaccinated is low, risk of infection still remains, especially with increasing age. Therefore it is important to know how vaccination impacts transmission of the virus. In fact, vaccinated people are much less likely to pass on the virus: double vaccination reduces the chance of onward virus transmission by 40-60%. The reason for reduced onward transmission is that there is significantly less virus detectable in vaccinated people.

In summary, vaccination protects not only yourself, but those around you.

The goal of community vaccination programs is to achieve herd immunity. Herd immunity works through achieving sufficient population immunity that the transmission chain of a disease is broken. This protects the community from infection. While research is ongoing, it is calculated that 70-90% vaccination will be required to achieve herd immunity.

WHY VACCINE PASSPORTS

In a liberal society, restrictions imposed by the state on an individual’s liberty are justified only to prevent harm to others (rather than harm to ourselves). Unvaccinated individuals present a risk to society by being more likely to get infected and thereby infect others, possibly overburdening the health system and preventing others from accessing care (as is currently a concern in NSW). In the attempt to achieve herd immunity, incentives and disincentives for vaccination against COVID-19 have been widely discussed. One idea that has been proposed is a system of vaccine passports, similar to those which have been introduced in many countries. The idea behind a vaccine passport is that you cannot justify restriction of a vaccinated person’s liberty as they do not pose sufficient harm to others.

VACCINE PASSPORTS AND CHRISTIAN GATHERINGS

For Christians a major concern raised by the introduction of vaccine passports is the question of whether double vaccination should be a requirement for attendance at a church meeting.

A duty to gather?

A biblical text frequently cited in connection with this discussion is the exhortation in Hebrews 10:24–25: “And let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”

Several observations about these verses should be borne in mind as we consider their relevance to the present discussion:

• The situation being addressed in the letter to the Hebrews is not one in which the readers have found themselves temporarily prevented from holding large, face-to-face gatherings. Its challenge is not to believers who are conscientiously minimising health risks by complying with a public health order; it is to believers who are growing slack in their care for one another and shrinking back from publicly identifying with Christ and his people.
• The reference to “meeting together” in verse 25 is grammatically subordinate to the primary exhortation in verse 24: “And let us consider how we may spur one another on towards love and good deeds.” Its function within the sentence is to unpack what it will look like for the readers to obey the primary exhortation. It would be ironic in the extreme if we were to seize on the words about meeting together and use them as a justification for rushing back prematurely (and without vaccination) into face-to-face gatherings, without giving careful consideration to the “love and good deeds” we are meant to be spurring each other on toward.
• The kind of “meeting together” that the verse encourages as a vehicle for mutual encouragement does not necessarily require large, weekly, extended, indoor gatherings. There are other ways in which we can fulfil the purpose of the exhortation in this verse.¹

Nevertheless, it is true that face-to-face presence with other believers is basic to how the Christian life is normally to be lived, and Christians who are physically separated from one another will long to gather in person as soon as the circumstances that prevent it can be overcome. In our current context, this gives us as Christians a further motivation to embrace the opportunity of vaccination, if that will help to create the conditions under which such gatherings will be safe and legal.

Conscientious objections

For a small number of vaccine-hesitant Christians, the objection to vaccination is a conscientious one, arising from the fact that the process of developing some vaccines involved the use of cell lines derived from human fetuses electively aborted decades ago. The use of fetal cell lines in pharmaceutical research is certainly a matter that ought to be of concern for Christians. Nevertheless, there are good reasons why Christians who place a high value on all human life should support rather than oppose the use of the vaccines currently available for COVID-19, none of which contain fetal cell tissue or contribute in any direct way to the destruction of fetuses in our own time.² The conscience of those who remain unpersuaded by those arguments should be respected, but respecting a person’s conscience does not automatically confer on them a right to act in a way that endangers the health and safety of others.

Non-conscientious objections

Other Christians (and other members of the broader community) resist vaccination for a variety of other reasons, including anxiety about the vaccines’ extremely rare side-effects or scepticism about expert opinion, government policy or the motives of the pharmaceutical industry. Objections of this nature may be firmly held, but in most cases they are not of the sort that should rightly be described as matters of conscience.

Questions for Christian leaders and congregations

In the COVID-19 era, churches will be aiming to be inclusive, respectful of conscientious convictions, and safe for all those who attend. Given the current state of our knowledge about the vaccine and assuming levels of community transmission and hospitalisation that are within the capacity of our health system, it is reasonable to anticipate that there will soon be a time when opening our churches to those who are double vaccinated will be unproblematic. But what about those who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons, or the children in our church communities who are too young to be vaccinated? What about those who object to vaccination for conscientious reasons, or because they distrust the experts, the authorities or the pharmaceutical industry? And what about the frail and sick members of our church family, for whom infection still poses a serious risk even after vaccination?

BIBLICAL PRINCIPLES

What biblical principles apply as we seek to address questions such as these?

1. Love our neighbours (Mark 12:31): In the absence of any convincing argument to the contrary, accepting vaccination should be strongly encouraged as a way to reduce the duration and severity of the pandemic, lessening risk of illness and death, the stress of lockdowns and the strain on our healthcare system. It is an obvious and practical way in which Christians can obey God’s command for us to love our neighbours.
2. Obey our leaders (Romans 13:1): Our government has a legitimate, God-given responsibility to protect the safety of its citizens and safeguard the interests of the most vulnerable. It is not overstepping the boundaries of its mandate if it requires religious groups to install smoke detectors in their buildings, obtain WWCC clearances for their staff and volunteers, or observe public health regulations to restrict the spread of a pandemic. There are situations in which our duty as Christians to love God and seek the good of our neighbours may require us to stand in civil disobedience against an unjust law, but it would be a rare situation indeed in which conscience required us to disobey the public health measures put in place by a democratically elected government.
3. Respect the consciences of others (Romans 14): Those whose are genuinely convinced that it would be morally wrong for them to accept the vaccine should not be coerced into sinning against their conscience. But conscientious objection usually comes at a cost of some sort and the safety of the most vulnerable members of the church and the wider community should not be held hostage to the desire of others to do as they please, irrespective of government health orders or the risk to others.
4. Prioritise the weakest and most vulnerable (1 Corinthians 12:21–26): In both our duty to the wider public and our care for the congregation with whom we gather, we are to prioritise the needs of the weakest and most vulnerable. This is the case even when (and perhaps especially when) they do not have a loud voice of their own to broadcast their opinions and lobby for their rights.

A PATH FORWARD

Given our responsibility to love our neighbours and prioritise the interests of the most vulnerable, there are good and persuasive reasons for us to support and implement a system in which proof of vaccination (or medical exemption) is a standard requirement for attendance at large indoor gatherings such as church services. Because of the high levels of vaccination that would be required for herd immunity, the interconnectedness of the world’s populations and the likely emergence of new variants of concern, a requirement of this sort may continue to be necessary for some time into the future (along with other measures such as social distancing, mask wearing, and frequent handwashing).

But this should not mean that we exclude those who have not been vaccinated from the fellowship of the church or from the circle of our ministry. If a regime of vaccine passports is to be with us for some time into the future, then our energy should be expended not on fighting against it but on finding safe, inclusive and responsible ways to gather and minister within such a context. One obvious option would be to advocate for a system that permitted those who remain unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated to produce evidence of being COVID-negative as a condition for church attendance. Another would be to continue and expand the range of online opportunities for Christian fellowship and online communication. And, as restrictions on outdoor gatherings continue to be relaxed into the future, another would be to take more of our gatherings, both small and large, into suitable outdoor spaces.

With care, creativity and a willingness to pursue the good of others ahead of our own convenience and advantage, it should be entirely possible for us to practise both our call to minister the gospel to all people and our responsibility to love our neighbours and care for the vulnerable, without requiring one of these commitments to trump the other.

Author: A/Prof Megan Best, 14 September 2021 (republished with permission.)

Acknowledgements: Thanks to David Starling, Kate Groom and Michael Jensen for their feedback.

Ethicentre is a new organisation which exists to provide reliable information about matters of Christian ethics within a Biblical framework. To sign up for the Ethicentre newsletter email: please send your name and preferred email address to [email protected].

1. This is true even in the case of the word episynagōgē that the writer uses here, which probably does imply a communal gathering of some sort for prayer and hearing God’s word. It is even more obviously true in the case of the wider range of daily interactions between believers that the writer speaks of elsewhere in the letter. 

2. For a discussion of reasons why Christians should accept the currently available vaccines, see Best M. Does acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine represent endorsement of abortion?

No. Both these vaccines employ molecules called messenger RNA that have been synthesised in laboratories. After immunisation the molecules are designed to enter into cells within the body where they give the molecular instructions for those cells to produce the coronavirus spike protein. This is then released into the bloodstream causing the body’s natural immune mechanisms to generate antibodies and immune cells against the spike protein. As a result the individual becomes immune to the coronavirus. The messenger RNA molecules themselves only survive in the body for a matter of hours following immunisation and they are then destroyed by normal cellular mechanisms.

There is no scientific or biological possibility that the messenger RNA molecules in the new vaccines are capable of changing human DNA. Information flows one way, from DNA (in the cell nucleus), via mRNA, to ribosomes in the main cell cytoplasm where proteins are produced. So when new vaccine mRNA enters cells, it goes straight to the ribosomes to be transcribed into proteins, and never goes near the cell nucleus or the DNA.

There is a completely different class of virus, called retroviruses, which do carry the ability to alter human DNA, and analysis of the human genetic code suggests that a significant part of our DNA originated in ancient retroviruses.

Is it true that the new covid vaccines have not undergone normal safety testing procedures?

No. The new covid vaccines have undergone the same extensive independent testing and scrutiny that all new medications must undergo in developed countries. All the candidate vaccines have been tested in carefully designed large Phase 3 ‘double blind’ studies which investigate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine compared with a harmless placebo. The results of the studies have been analysed by large numbers of independent experts and much of the data have been made publically available to scientists around the world. At the time in December 2020 that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were approved tens of thousands of people had received both vaccines without any serious side effects.

It is true that the vaccine development, testing and approval process has occurred much faster than normal, but this is because there have been extraordinary levels of focussed international scientific effort, massive funding and unprecedented cooperation between experts. Since mass immunisation campaigns started in December 2020 hundreds of thousands of people have already received the vaccine and detailed analysis of possible side effects is continuing. Although no biologically effective medication can ever be regarded as completely safe, the available data indicate that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have excellent safety records, and they are in fact far safer than many medications such as aspirin and ibuprofen which are in common use.  

Is there hidden collusion between Western governments and big pharmaceutical companies to hide adverse effects of the vaccines?

This concern has been amplified by the recent news that the UK Government granted the pharmaceutical company Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine. NHS staff providing the vaccine, as well as manufacturers of the drug, are also protected. It is important to understand that the assessment of safety and efficacy of all new medications is undertaken by a large number of independent and highly experienced academic scientists who are independent of both government control and payment by pharmaceutical companies. All the scientists involved are aware that their integrity and international reputations depend totally on being seen to be honest, truthful and unbiased. If it subsequently became apparent that there had been some dishonesty or deception their careers and reputations would be destroyed. From my personal experience of running a randomised clinical trial that was supervised under the same UK and US regulation I am confident that the information that has been made publically available on safety of the vaccines is as honest and accurate as possible.

The motivation for providing indemnity to the pharmaceutical companies is that literally billions of doses are intended to be given over the next few months. If extremely rare but serious side effects emerge, the potential litigation costs would rapidly bankrupt the companies despite their immense capitalisation. In order to protect their shareholders’ interests the companies would have a duty to halt all vaccination around the world (possibly for months or years) as soon as the first serious side effect was announced. In order to prevent this possibility the UK Government has taken on legal responsibility. So legal protections remain for participants but it is the government (i.e. taxpayers) who will have to pay. In fact according to the Vaccine Damages Payments Act there will be a one-off payment of £120,000 to any person which is permanently disabled or harmed as a result of the vaccine. Similar arrangements have been made for previous vaccines such as the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine.

Is it true that the new covid vaccines contain tissues from an aborted fetus?

No. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines employ messenger RNA molecules which have been synthesised artificially in laboratories. However as part of the vaccine development process the vaccines were tested using a so-called ‘immortal’ cell-line called HEK-293. This cell line consists of continually multiplying cells which have been multiplying for more than 40 years. The original cells were said to have been obtained from a fetus (unborn baby) who underwent a legal abortion for other reasons in the Netherlands in 1973. No further abortions were performed as part of the vaccine development process and the vaccines do not contain any fetal tissue. The use of the HEK-293 cell-line does raise the question of whether the vaccine might be regarded as ‘morally tainted’. This is a complex question which I have discussed in an article called ‘Coronavirus vaccines and Christian Ethics’. The Novavax vaccine which is currently undergoing Phase 3 trials did not use HEK-293 cells or other ethically questionable cell-lines in its development. It is currently not available for routine clinical use.

Is it true that the risks of coronavirus infection have been massively exaggerated for political or other devious reasons?

No. There is a consensus amongst epidemiologists, virologists and infectious disease experts around the world that the current Covid-19 pandemic is the most dangerous global health emergency since the Spanish influenza in 1918/19. There is already clear evidence that 2020 has seen hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that would not have occurred without the pandemic. In addition to the tragic deaths, there is growing evidence of very significant long-lasting complications in some survivors including strokes, heart problems, chronic lung conditions and even long-lasting cognitive impairment. It now seems likely that many thousands if not millions of people will be living with the medical complications of coronavirus infection for years to come.

Is it true that the coronavirus vaccines use covert surveillance techniques created by Bill Gates?

No. None of the vaccines approved by regulatory authorities use covert surveillance techniques. Like many conspiracy theories, this one has its origin in a genuine news item. In December 2019 a group of US researchers who were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published a research paper about a technology that was capable of placing a vaccination record on a patient’s skin using a smart-ink that could then be read by a smartphone. The research was not related to the coronavirus pandemic and the technology has not been further developed or implemented as yet.

Is it true that Western democratic governments are planning to make coronavirus vaccination compulsory?

No. At the time of writing no Western democratic governments have revealed plans to make vaccination compulsory. There are very strong legal and historic protections for individual liberty and conscience in most of these countries, and only totalitarian governments are likely to enforce vaccination. However it is likely that there will be public campaigns to persuade as many people as possible to receive vaccination in order to raise the levels of immunity within the population as a whole.

Is it true that coronavirus vaccination may lead to infertility?

There is no strong scientific evidence to support this possibility. The existing clinical trials excluded pregnant women but this is standard practice in all clinical trials, to avoid the remote possibility that a new medication might cause unanticipated damage to an unborn baby. The current UK advice is that people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or who may get pregnant within three months of their first dose should not receive the vaccine, but this is out of concern for possible risks to the baby, not because of a risk of infertility.

It has been suggested that there is a small overlap in the amino acid sequences of the coronavirus spike protein and an important placental protein called syncytin-1. Hence if the body creates antibodies against the spike protein they might inadvertently attack the placental protein. This is a theoretical possibility that remains entirely speculative and most experts in the area think it is extremely unlikely. If the mechanism turns out to be true then it is theoretically possible that infection with the natural coronavirus might inadvertently lead to later infertility. However there is absolutely no evidence to support this at present.

Is it true that volunteers have died as a result of receiving experimental coronavirus vaccines?

There were two deaths amongst the 21,000 people who received the Pfizer vaccine but after extensive investigation by independent scientists they were determined to be unrelated, chance events. For comparison there were four deaths that occurred by chance in the 21,000 people who received the inactive placebo, so one might conclude that being injected with salt water was more dangerous than receiving the vaccine!

Shortly following the commencement of immunisation with the Pfizer vaccine in the UK two health professionals, who both had a previous a history of life-threatening allergy, developed serious allergic responses to the vaccine. It appears that the two individuals did not suffer lasting ill-effects, but the UK advice was modified following these incidents to recommend that people with a history of very severe allergic responses (called anaphylaxis) should not receive the vaccine. 

Is it true that the virus mutates so rapidly that vaccines will become rapidly ineffective?

It is well known that the influenza virus mutates continuously and hence a new influenza vaccine has to be developed every year. There is growing evidence that new mutations of the COVID-19 virus are arising across the world. Experts hope that the current vaccines will remain active for longer than one year. However because of the use of new vaccine technologies it is relatively easy for manufacturers to adapt existing vaccines as new mutations become widespread. It is likely that, at least for the next few years, there will be a continuing race between the appearance of new mutations and the adaptation of vaccines to combat them.

Is it true that hydroxychloroquine is an effective and safe oral treatment for Covid-19?

Sadly, there is no evidence to support this. In March 2020, the preliminary results of a small study of hydroxychloroquine in 36 hospitalised patients in France were published online. There appeared to be some benefit from the treatment but this was an open-label and non-randomised study, which therefore did not meet the agreed standards for demonstrating safety and efficacy. Following the publication of these results, at a very early stage of the pandemic, it is understandable that many clinicians, faced with desperately sick and dying patients, tried treating them with hydroxychloroquine since it was unlikely to do any harm.

The use of the drug was promoted and encouraged by President Trump. Since then a number of carefully designed randomised trials have been undertaken on hydroxychloroquine, involving thousands of subjects in many countries. These trials have investigated its use both as a preventative agent and as a treatment for the virus. None of these carefully designed and carried out studies have demonstrated any significant beneficial effect of hydroxychloroquine.

This article, last updated on 4 February, is reproduced by kind permission from Professor John Wyatt’s website

The impact of the church on health and development is much greater than it appears. There are two main reasons for this: First, Christians working at the front line are so busy that they often do not have time to document their achievements in ways that enter the public domain. Second, though hard to quantify, the media, especially in high income countries, is often led by those who fail to understand ‘spiritual anthropology’ and the significant roles that churches can play.

But recently this has started to change. For example, a medical journal, The Lancet, has published on the linkage between faith and health: ‘The role of faith in Faith-based organisations and their common visions of stewardship, inclusiveness, dignity, and justice make many such organisations ideally suited as key partners for delivering the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.’

The recent coronavirus pandemic has exemplified the increasing role of the church in society. Some of the major questions we therefore need to ask include:

• What long term impact will COVID-19 have on global health and development?
• What are some possible solutions?
• How can the church play the most useful role at this time?
• How can health professionals be best involved and collaborate most effectively?

What long term impact will COVID-19 have on global health and development?

Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet writes: ‘Global health has entered a period of rapid reversal. De-development is the new norm.’ And the reason, simply stated by a Kenyan leader of the Arukah Network, is this—‘COVID, COVID, COVID, other diseases don’t count.’

Here are some crucial examples of ways in which COVID-19 will be reversing global health.

Immunisations

In July 2020 the Director General of the World Health Organisation stated: ‘The number of children dying from missed vaccinations is likely to far outpace the numbers of people dying from COVID-19.’ I would add that the growing number of ‘anti-vaxxers’ in the United States and other countries is greatly adding to this problem.

Three infectious disease killers: AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria

The Global Fund Partnership has saved 38 million lives since 2002, including 6 million in 2019 alone. However, the Results Report 2020 shows that much of that progress could now be lost due to the knock-on effects of COVID-19. Deaths and infections from HIV, TB, and malaria could skyrocket in the next 12 months, the report warns.

National economies

Their impact on community livelihoods and critically on the actual survival of the most vulnerable is vital. According to the World Bank, the pandemic, coupled with a collapse in commodity prices and a plague of locusts, have hit African economies particularly hard, putting 43 million more people at risk of extreme poverty.

Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)

The term does not exactly roll off the tongue. But NCDs account for about 7 deaths in 10 worldwide, that is, 41 million each year. They include cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension. Moreover 1 in 5 people are at increased risk of COVID-19 owing to underlying NCDs.

Impact on women

It is estimated that 47 million women will be prevented from access to contraception, seven million unintended pregnancies are predicted to occur over six months, some from transactional sex to earn income for the family. Save the Children estimates there will be 2.5 million more child marriages due to the pandemic.

Gender-based violence

For every three months the lockdown continues, an alarming additional 15 million cases of gender-based violence are expected.

What are some possible solutions?

How might we, along with others of kind intention, help to bring solutions? We will start with the crucial role of the community. A recent paper explains why:

Community members, including the marginalised, identify solutions that work best in their situations. They know what knowledge and rumours are circulating. They can provide insight into stigma and other barriers. They are well placed to work with others from their communities to devise collective responses.

Primary health care is being given even more prominence as a response to ‘post-COVID’. A quote from the WHO World Health Report in 2008 remains highly relevant: ‘Primary health care (PHC) brings balance back to health care and puts families and communities at the hub of the health system. With an emphasis on local ownership it makes space for solutions created by communities, owned by them and sustained by them.’ Countries, especially in Africa, are giving PHC a renewed priority. This includes the training of many new Community Health Workers (CHWs). Kenya is currently training 100,000. In Sierra Leone CHWs already outnumber doctors by 95 to 1.

‘Home-grown solutions’ could be another approach. It is really quite easy to learn how to take your own blood pressure or even measure your own blood glucose. This self-help approach also helps to demystify and de-medicalize common health conditions which are part of people’s lives. But it must not discourage people from reporting new or worsening symptoms.

One final suggestion is the rapidly growing telemedicine and use of information technology including WhatsApp and mobile phones. As one community member recently expressed, ‘Whether I’m deep in Malawi or deep in the Amazon all I need is a mobile phone and connection that allows me to talk to a clinician.’

How can the church play the most useful role at this time?

Bearing in mind that more that 84 percent of people worldwide personally identify with a religious faith and the number is growing, except in Europe, and nearly one third consider themselves Christian, faith leaders have two overwhelming advantages. First, they are present in nearly all communities in the world. Second, they are often listened to more than others who offer advice or make pronouncements.

‘I’ve seen many behaviour changes being much faster and more sustainable since faith leaders have been involved’, said Esther Lehmann-Sow, partnership leader for faith and development at World Vision. ‘People are more likely to trust a faith leader than a nongovernmental organisation they may not be familiar with’, said Umar Rashid, health and WASH lead of aid group Muslim Hands, adding that ‘the organisation is more welcome in communities where it has religious partnerships.’

There are two important provisos for Christian leaders, church pastors, and their congregations. First, they must believe in, follow, and ‘preach’ the science. Second, they need to avoid defaulting to a position that states that faith and prayer are all we need. That was often the case in the early stages of AIDS with sometimes disastrous results. Of course, faith and prayer are important but our God is Lord of all, both faith and nature.

Worldwide, Christian leaders must now step up to have a greater impact, not just at the community level, but at the regional and national level, making sure their message is relevant, based on truth and spoken with gentle authority.

How can health care professionals be best involved and collaborate most effectively?

There are multiple ways, but we need to note some key underlying principles:

1. Enquire from God and wise colleagues regarding personal priorities in our own situations. It is important to consider social care and mental health problems.
2. As far as circumstances allow, ensure that those with conditions unconnected with COVID are able to receive the diagnosis and treatment they need.
3. Spend time with church leaders both to encourage them in the bewildering situations many are facing, and also to guide them to speak truth and give clear messages to their congregations and communities.
4. Set boundaries for ourselves so that we do not burn out, or become exhausted, cynical, or ineffective. And crucially that we do not neglect or short-change our own families.

The COVID-19 crisis is a great opportunity for collaboration. However, because of fear and anxiety this does not happen automatically. We must be intentional in making this happen. Here are some ways we can bring this about. At a local and regional level we connect with others, find common grounds and bring encouragement and affirmation. Nationally through networks of Christian health professionals, we bring about constructive change and compassionate care, even influencing national health policies where possible. Internationally we support and engage with existing groups. These include the International Christian Medical and Dental Association (ICMDA), Christian Health Associations in Africa (ACHAP), and equivalent groups in west Asia. Also, Christian Connections for International Health (CCIH) based in Washington DC, and the small but increasingly effective Arukah Network for Community Global Health.

We also need to be aware of those groups, both faith-based and secular, who are speaking constructively into the current situation. Two examples are the World Health Organisation, and the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs.

In summary

During times of crisis, alongside lamentation, we believe in the redemptive hope that God will bring unexpected blessings. We recognise our role to create these. The church and Christians at all levels can bring kind leadership, community example, and creative compassion. These are the very attributes that Jesus taught us, which we all need at such a time as this.

Dr Ted Lankester serves as President of Thrive Worldwide, Co-Director and Founder of Arukah Network, and External Lecturer on Community Health at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This article is republished with kind permission from the Lausanne Movement website where it is also available in French, Spanish and Portuguese. 

This is a viral infection that jumped from animal species (bat, pangolin) to human beings and therefore a zoonosis. The proximate cause for infectious diseases that jump from other species to mankind is the rapid pace of modern development which encroaches upon the natural habitats of different animals and brings several animal species to the brink of extinction. The important lessons, yet to be learnt by mankind, are:

1. how to avoid disrupting Nature’s carefully balanced and fragile eco-systems, and
2. how to live in harmony with Nature

The whole approach to ‘modern development’ needs to be re-visited and revised on a war footing globally to avert such calamities in future.

The COVID pandemic in India apparently peaked in mid-September 2020 and entered endemic phase by the latter part of January 2021. This endemic phase is a steady state when the daily number of infections will remain low but more or less constant. This number will be roughly equal to the daily number of susceptible subjects added to the population by way of children who survive to age five. This number will be approximately 54,000 per day in India. However only about 25% of the daily new infections will be picked up and documented by the current testing strategy employed in India.

Similarly, the daily deaths will continue at a rate of about 700-800 per day – unfortunately only a fifth of these will be accurately reported as death certification in India is only about 20%. A similar situation probably exists in many medium and small income countries.

In view of these emerging facts, the health care workers in India have two targets to achieve as soon as possible:

1. achieve 100 % vaccination of all health care workers, and
2. inform-educate-communicate the public to achieve 100% vaccination coverage of all those above age 55 and those under 55 with co-morbidity like diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney, liver or lung disease

Vaccination of all frontline healthcare workers is very important to ensure that we have a confident healthcare force, who will not transmit the virus unwittingly to patients and families who need their care. The ready acceptance of the vaccine by the healthcare force will infuse confidence into the general public and ensure speedy and universal acceptance of vaccination by the population at risk.

Countries in which the pandemic has just peaked or about to peak are at the half-way mark: about 30% of the population have been exposed to and therefore are immune to the virus and a further 30% will get infected in the ensuing months before they reach the steady endemic state.

While countries such as India, in which the pandemic has already reached the steady endemic state, need to employ a targeted vaccination strategy to prevent deaths, countries such as the US, UK, Indonesia and Portugal where the pandemic has just peaked or is about to peak, will need to employ a mass vaccination strategy with the twin objectives of curtailing rapid viral spread and preventing deaths.

As none of the currently available vaccines offers 100% protection, those at high risk of serious disease or death from this viral infection will still need to use the face mask, maintain physical distance from others and avoid crowded places even after vaccination.

The emergence of variants of the SARS-C0-V2 virus with greater infective potential in UK and South Africa and the uncertainties of vaccine efficacy against some of these variants underscores the urgent need for pursuing aggressive vaccination globally to get quick control over the pandemic situation.

The transmission of the virus from human beings to minks in Norway and back transmission from minks to humans indicates the potential for the virus to infect other animals and create animal reservoirs. If this happens the virus will not be eradicable. This eventuality has to be pre-empted by systematic global vaccination.

Systematic and carefully crafted vaccination to suit the needs of individual countries under the supervision of the WHO and the public health departments of individual countries with the assistance of all philanthropic agencies and Non-Governmental Organisations offers the hope of global eradication of COVID-19.

A global threat like a pandemic needs a concerted global response for speedy resolution. This is a time for sharing. There is a need for close co-operation and co-ordination between all the countries of the world – rich and poor. The same way different scientific establishments across the globe shared their knowledge, wisdom and experience during the pandemic, the countries of the world need to share vaccines with others with resource constraints in humanitarian interest. India has shared its indigenously manufactured COVID-19 vaccines with its neighboring countries, setting an example and leading the global co-operative effort to eradicate COVID-19.

Dr Mandalam Seshadri MD, PhD FRCP is Former Professor & Head of the Department of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, CMC Hospital, Vellore and currently Honorary Medical Director & Consultant Endocrinologist, Thirumalai Mission Hospital, Ranipet, India

Vaccines developed from fetal cells lines are not new. Pharmaceutical companies have found fetal cell lines to be perfect for growing vaccines. These fetal cell lines were originally derived in the 1970s and 1980s from two elective abortions that were not performed for the purpose of vaccine development.

Fetal cell lines have already been used to create vaccines for diseases such as hepatitis A, rubella, and rabies. Only two fetal cells lines are being used: HEK-293 – a kidney cell line that was isolated from a terminated fetus in 1972; and PER.C6 – a retinal cell line that was isolated from a terminated fetus in 1985. No other fetal cells from aborted fetuses have been used and no new abortions have been carried out since in order to obtain new fetal cell lines.

No vaccines of any kind contain aborted fetal tissue and of the various Covid-19 vaccines, only live attenuated or inactivated virus vaccines and viral vector vaccines have used fetal cell lines in their production. Some of these have used animal cell lines while others have used human fetal cell lines. Examples are AstraZeneca, CanSino, Gamaleya (Sputnik V), and Janssen. Other DNA, RNA and Protein vaccines do not require fetal cell lines for their development. Examples of RNA vaccines are the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. For a full list see: COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-Derived Cell Lines.

For those who are concerned about the moral implications of using vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells, the RNA, DNA, and Protein vaccines will not be a problem. It is only with live attenuated or inactivation vaccines that a potential problem arises.

I believe that Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians of the church offers some wisdom on this issue. From Thomas Aquinas, we learn of the principle of natural law, the principle of totality, and the principle of double effect.

The principle of natural law states that the ‘Natural Law consists of first judgment that good should be pursued and evil avoided’. It means that all moral actions should seek the greater good and not greater harm. What is a vaccine for the greater good? It will give some protection for the vulnerable and those at high risk, especially older people, those with other chronic medical conditions, and those whose immune systems are weak. It will also aim to create herd immunity to protect those who have not yet been infected. Under natural law, we should aim to do good, not evil.

In his second principle, the law of totality, Aquinas noted that ‘the body may be changed only to ensure proper functioning of the whole body’. He pointed out that it is our duty to be responsible stewards not only of our own bodies but also of our neighbours’ bodies. Such vaccines will strengthen the body’s defences against the virus. Aquinas was not aware of vaccination but he was aware of plagues and pestilences.

Aquinas’ third and final principle is double effect. Aquinas taught that ‘the act must be good or at least morally neutral. The moral agent must intend only the good effect and bad effect must not be the means of bringing about the good effect. The good and the bad effect must be proportional.’ He was saying that sometimes a given action may have two outcomes, one good and one bad.

For example, in ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo is implanted not in the uterus but in a fallopian tube, life threatening haemorrhage may ensue and a doctor may have to remove the fallopian tube containing the embryo to save the mother’s life. The baby cannot be saved in any circumstance and without an operation, both mother and embryo will die. The principle of double effect decrees that as the intention was to save the mother’s life in circumstances where the fetus could not be saved, the action was admissible. Another example might be where strong pain relief, which may impair respiration, is given with the primary intention of relieving pain. Suppression of respiration is not intended but it may be foreseen as a risk of adequately easing pain.

This is very different from saying that the end of saving life through vaccines in some way justifies the means of taking early life through abortion. That would be saying that the end justifies the means and that is unethical.

But if a morally wrong act (abortion) can later be turned for good (the making of vaccines) by someone who was not complicit in or approving of the original act that is morally different.  

Aquinas’ teaching may have an impact on how we think about fetal cell lines. These fetal cells line were derived from two abortions done 30-40 years ago. Yet these fetuses have provided a legacy to ensure that others keep on living.

Ultimately, the choice is yours. As I have mentioned, not all Covid-19 vaccines are made from human fetal cells. What is essential is that enough people need to be vaccinated both for their own individual and their neighbours’ protection.

For the Vatican’s directive, see: CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Note on the morality of using some anti-Covid-19 vaccines (21 December 2020)

Dr Alex Tang is a Paediatrician and Practical Theologian from Johor Bahru Malaysia. This article is reproduced with permission from his website.

Psalm 91 is sometimes quoted about the current pandemic. It suggests God will protect us and states, ‘Nor will any plague come near your tent’ (v10, NASB)

This beautiful psalm comforts us that we do not face our problems alone. We must not misinterpret it as a magical promise that no Christian will suffer. Nobody thinks it means that if you jump off a building angels will save you (v12). The devil tempted Jesus to do just that.  Jesus reply was curt:

 ‘Again, it is written, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.”’

(Matthew 4:7, ESV)

We should not presume upon the protection of God and use this psalm as an excuse not to take steps to protect ourselves. To do so could be to test God the same way that Satan urged Jesus.

God’s protection offered in this psalm is not absolute. It is a spiritual, mental and eternal protection. The same concept is in one of the most famous verses in the Bible which appears to promise at first glance we will never die. Instead, Christians do die. It’s just that when we do our death is not permanent:

‘For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life.’

(John 3:16, Good News Bible)

Psalm 91 rightly used gives great comfort and hope but our hope is not for a trouble and sickness free ‘today’ but for a glorious ‘eternity’ to come.  As Jesus himself promised:

‘I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.’

(John 16:33, ESV)

Despite the promises of God’s protection, we must still act responsibly, such as by wearing a seat belt when we get in a car. The use of medicines and vaccines are similar. We should not presume that God will shield us from the consequences of living in a fallen broken world.  

In the time of the New Testament there was a lot of miraculous healing power at work but even the Apostles were not immune to sickness, nor were they able to heal everyone. Paul not only travelled with a personal Physician, Luke, but advocated the use of basic medical remedies to improve his friend’s health:

‘No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.’

(1 Timothy 5:23, ESV)

The idea that God will protect faith-filled Christians from COVID-19 could be called an over-realised eschatology for those who like theological terms.

Some other Christians over-emphasise the sovereignty of God. This can lead to passivity and is another reason some turn down vaccines or other medical help.

COVID-19 vaccination is a life-or-death issue for believers too. In the clinical studies nobody got severe COVID-19, were hospitalised or died more than a few days after their first dose of any of the three main vaccines (Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, or Moderna). 

We do not yet know whether they will prevent all severe disease in people with other co-morbid conditions, and they are likely not to work as well in the immune compromised. Even if you believe that you yourself are not in a high-risk group, others around you are.

Vaccination is not just an act of self-preservation. It is an act of love towards our neighbours to do them good.

Failing to act to protect those who are more vulnerable than ourselves could itself constitute a sin of omission as we might be the direct cause of harm that is preventable. This is the same argument for social distancing and wearing masks. By taking steps to prevent ourselves getting and transmitting COVID-19 we are saving the lives of others less fortunate.

Most Christians do not reject medicines and medical help in general.  There is no reason to reject vaccination wholesale as a non-Christian concept. God has given humans wisdom to create medicines and vaccines and we can accept them as coming from the common grace that he lavishes on all of us whether we follow him or not.

Adrian Warnock is a British psychiatrist, clinical researcher, author and blogger. This article is abridged from his Patheos blog which also includes a summary of the scientific evidence and the biblical ethics of vaccination. 

After almost a year of socio-political disruption caused by the SARS-CoV-2 RNA virus, some vaccines have received emergency approval for use in the vulnerable and general population. Some countries have received and have begun to vaccinate their people, while others are anxiously awaiting the arrival of the vaccines. Christians and Christian faith communities are facing a new dilemma. Should they and the families receive the COVID-19 vaccination? This is not about being anti-vax or a vaccine resister. This is about making a choice.

First, helping and protecting the sick, the poor, and the vulnerable has always been part of the Christian mandate. In the past few months, most Christians have been part of the public health program acting to contain the spread of infection and treating the infected by participating in lockdowns, hand washing, social distancing, and wearing face masks. These measures in some countries have managed to control the spread of the infection and prevent healthcare facilities from being overwhelmed. It bought time for healthcare measures to be put in place. Though not all Christians agree to these measures, by and large, most are involved and some have sacrificed their lives. Christians count among the numerous deaths of healthcare workers. Pre-COVID-19 pandemic, vaccination is one of the most effective forms of public health measures and has achieved a drastic lowering of childhood death rate in the last few decades. Smallpox has been eradicated and polio almost. The COVID-19 vaccine should be perceived as something helpful in public health measures in protecting the vulnerable and the community.

Second, the rapid development of the vaccine is a testimony to international scientific collaboration and funding. There are four categories of COVID-19 vaccines:

1. Vaccine virus (inactivated virus)
2. Protein-based virus (viral particles)
3. Viral vector vaccines (non-replicating viral vector)
4. Nucleic Acid Vaccine (RNA vaccine)

The first three vaccine types are not unknown and are the reasons for the successful vaccination program in primary healthcare. What most Christians and others are concerned about is the RNA vaccine.

The RNA vaccine is produced by totally new technology. One of the concerns is about the short time in development. Research on vaccines for SARS, H1N1 Influenza, and Ebola has been quite advanced for many years. The search for the RNA vaccine did not start from scratch. The scientists just used the SARS-CoV-2 virus with existing technology to produce the vaccine. So, counting existing templates, the development of the vaccine is a few years, not a few months.

The RNA from the RNA vaccine acts outside the nucleus to produce proteins for the body to react and develop immunity against. The RNA does not enter the nucleus and interact with the DNA or cause mutations.

The safety and efficacy of the RNA vaccine is yet to be fully established. In the phase 3 trials involving a large number of people, so far it has been shown to be safe and has remarkable efficacy (more than 95%). These trials are less than three months old so data on long term immunity, prevention of spread in the community, and long-term safety is not yet available. Lacking any measures to adequately protect the vulnerable such as those above 60 years old and the frontliners, the RNA vaccine seems to be an acceptable risk.

Third, the distribution cold chain of the RNA vaccine is a major concern. The Pfizer/BioNTech RNA vaccine needs to be stored at -70° C. There are few places on this planet with facilities to store at this temperature. Dry ice does not work. Any temperature above -70°C even for a short time will inactivate RNA rendering the vaccine useless. Unless there are in place the facilities to maintain the cold chain from the manufacturing plants to the distant rural clinics, there are concerns about using this vaccine. Giving people an inactivated vaccine will create a false sense of security and may do more harm than good.

Fourth, there should be equitable distribution of the vaccine. In the past, high- and middle-income countries tend to get the vaccine first before the lower-income countries. COVAX is a consortium of middle- and lower-income countries formed to ensure fair distribution of vaccines. Its effectiveness remains to be seen as we see already see the rollout of RNA vaccines in the high-income countries but not the low-income ones.

Finally, there are some who teach that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine is receiving the Mark of the Beast. There are numerous ways these teachers arrive at this conclusion, least of these is that CORONA is 666, and Bill Gates of Melinda and Gates Foundation has incorporated microchips in the RNA vaccine. In the Book of Revelation in the Bible, the Mark of the Lamb (Revelation 7:3) preceded the Mark of the Beast. In context, receiving the Mark of the Beast is a conscious choice to turn away from God. It is inconceivable anyone would associate the COVID-19 vaccine with the Mark of the Beast.

Christians are to act well, protect the weak and vulnerable, help the poor, and love their neighbours. The COVID-19 vaccine seems to be a light in a dark COVID year. Christians have one more measure for healthcare and that is prayer. Christians should not neglect the most powerful of these resources. While praying for the vulnerable and concerns about the vaccine, Christians should also consider whether they will choose to be vaccinated and if so, with which vaccine. Furthermore, churches should be considering getting vaccines for the poor and vulnerable in their communities if their government is not providing the vaccine for free.

Dr Alex Tang is a Paediatrician and Practical Theologian from Johor Bahru Malaysia. This article is reproduced with permission from his website.

Is there any scientific possibility that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines will change human DNA?

No. Both these vaccines employ molecules called messenger RNA that have been synthesised in laboratories. After immunisation the molecules are designed to enter into cells within the body where they give the molecular instructions for those cells to produce the coronavirus spike protein. This is then released into the blood stream causing the body’s natural immune mechanisms to generate antibodies and immune cells against the spike protein. As a result the individual becomes immune to the coronavirus. The messenger RNA molecules themselves only survive in the body for a matter of hours following immunisation and they are then destroyed by normal cellular mechanisms. There is no scientific or biological possibility that the messenger RNA molecules in the new vaccines are capable of changing human DNA. There is a completely different class of virus, called retroviruses, which do carry the ability to alter human DNA, and analysis of the human genetic code suggests that a significant part of our DNA originated in ancient retroviruses.

Is it true that the new covid vaccines have not undergone normal safety testing procedures?

No. The new covid vaccines have undergone the same extensive independent testing and scrutiny that all new medications must undergo in developed countries. All the candidate vaccines have been tested in carefully designed large Phase 3 ‘double blind’ studies which investigate the safety and efficacy of the vaccine compared with a harmless placebo. The results of the studies have been analysed by large numbers of independent experts and much of the data have been made publically available to scientists around the world. At the time in December 2020 that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were approved tens of thousands of people had received both vaccines without any serious side effects.

It is true that the vaccine development, testing and approval process has occurred much faster than normal, but this is because there have been extraordinary levels of focussed international scientific effort, massive funding and unprecedented cooperation between experts. Since mass immunisation campaigns started in December 2020 hundreds of thousands of people have already received the vaccine and detailed analysis of possible side effects is continuing. Although no biologically effective medication can ever be regarded as completely safe, the available data indicate that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have excellent safety records, and they are in fact far safer than many medications such as aspirin and ibuprofen which are in common use.  

Is there hidden collusion between Western governments and big pharmaceutical companies to hide adverse effects of the vaccines?

This concern has been amplified by the recent news that the UK Government granted the pharmaceutical company Pfizer a legal indemnity protecting it from legal action as a result of any problems with the vaccine. NHS staff providing the vaccine, as well as manufacturers of the drug, are also protected. It is important to understand that the assessment of safety and efficacy of all new medications is undertaken by a large number of independent and highly experienced academic scientists who are independent of both government control and payment by pharmaceutical companies. All the scientists involved are aware that their integrity and international reputations depend totally on being seen to be honest, truthful and unbiased. If it subsequently became apparent that there had been some dishonesty or deception their careers and reputations would be destroyed. From my personal experience of running a randomised clinical trial that was supervised under the same UK and US regulation I am confident that the information that has been made publically available on safety of the vaccines is as honest and accurate as possible.

The motivation for providing indemnity to the pharmaceutical companies is that literally billions of doses are intended to be given over the next few months. If extremely rare but serious side effects emerge, the potential litigation costs would rapidly bankrupt the companies despite their immense capitalisation. In order to protect their shareholders’ interests the companies would have a duty to halt all vaccination around the world (possibly for months or years) as soon as the first serious side effect was announced. In order to prevent this possibility the UK Government has taken on legal responsibility. So legal protections remain for participants but it is the government (ie taxpayers) who will have to pay. In fact according to the Vaccine Damages Payments Act there will be a one-off payment of £120,000 to any person which is permanently disabled or harmed as a result of the vaccine. Similar arrangements have been made for previous vaccines such as the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine.

Is it true that the new covid vaccines contain tissues from an aborted fetus?

No. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines employ messenger RNA molecules which have been synthesised artificially in laboratories. However as part of the vaccine development process the vaccines were tested using a so-called ‘immortal’ cell-line called HEK-293. This cell line consists of continually multiplying cells which have been multiplying for more than 40 years. The original cells were said to have been obtained from a fetus (unborn baby) who underwent a legal abortion for other reasons in the Netherlands in 1973. No further abortions were performed as part of the vaccine development process and the vaccines do not contain any fetal tissue. The use of the HEK-293 cell-line does raise the question of whether the vaccine might be regarded as ‘morally tainted’. This is a complex question which I have discussed in an article called ‘Coronavirus vaccines and Christian Ethics’. At present there is no generally available coronavirus vaccine that has not been developed using HEK-293 cells.

Is it true that the risks of coronavirus infection have been massively exaggerated for political or other devious reasons?

No. There is a consensus amongst epidemiologists, virologists and infectious disease experts around the world that the current Covid-19 pandemic is the most dangerous global health emergency since the Spanish influenza in 1918/19. There is already clear evidence that 2020 has seen hundreds of thousands of excess deaths that would not have occurred without the pandemic. In addition to the tragic deaths, there is growing evidence of very significant long-lasting complications in some survivors including strokes, heart problems, chronic lung conditions and even long-lasting cognitive impairment. It now seems likely that many thousands if not millions of people will be living with the medical complications of coronavirus infection for years to come.

Is it true that the coronavirus vaccines use covert surveillance techniques created by Bill Gates?

No. None of the vaccines approved by regulatory authorities use covert surveillance techniques. Like many conspiracy theories, this one has its origin in a genuine news item. In December 2019 a group of US researchers who were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation published a research paper about a technology that was capable of placing a vaccination record on a patient’s skin using a smart-ink that could then be read by a smartphone. The research was not related to the coronavirus pandemic and the technology has not been further developed or implemented as yet.

Is it true that Western democratic governments are planning to make coronavirus vaccination compulsory?

No. At the time of writing no Western democratic governments have revealed plans to make vaccination compulsory. There are very strong legal and historic protections for individual liberty and conscience in most of these countries, and only totalitarian governments are likely to enforce vaccination. However it is likely that there will be public campaigns to persuade as many people as possible to receive vaccination in order to raise the levels of immunity within the population as a whole.

Is it true that coronavirus vaccination may lead to infertility?

There is no strong scientific evidence to support this possibility. The existing clinical trials excluded pregnant women but this is standard practice in all clinical trials, to avoid the remote possibility that a new medication might cause unanticipated damage to an unborn baby. The current UK advice is that people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or who may get pregnant within three months of their first dose should not receive the vaccine, but this is out of concern for possible risks to the baby, not because of a risk of infertility.

It has been suggested that there is a small overlap in the amino acid sequences of the coronavirus spike protein and an important placental protein called syncytin-1. Hence if the body creates antibodies against the spike protein they might inadvertently attack the placental protein. This is a theoretical possibility that remains entirely speculative and most experts in the area think it is extremely unlikely. If the mechanism turns out to be true then it is theoretically possible that infection with the natural coronavirus might inadvertently lead to later infertility. However there is absolutely no evidence to support this at present.

Is it true that volunteers have died as a result of receiving experimental coronavirus vaccines?

There were two deaths amongst the 21,000 people who received the Pfizer vaccine but after extensive investigation by independent scientists they were determined to be unrelated, chance events. For comparison there were four deaths that occurred by chance in the 21,000 people who received the inactive placebo, so one might conclude that being injected with salt water was more dangerous than receiving the vaccine!

Shortly following the commencement of immunisation with the Pfizer vaccine in the UK two health professionals, who both had a previous a history of life-threatening allergy, developed serious allergic responses to the vaccine. It appears that the two individuals did not suffer lasting ill-effects, but the UK advice was modified following these incidents to recommend that people with a history of very severe allergic responses (called anaphylaxis) should not receive the vaccine. 

Is it true that the virus mutates so rapidly that vaccines will become rapidly ineffective?

It is well known that the influenza virus mutates continuously and hence a new influenza vaccine has to be developed every year. At present the evidence suggests that the Covid-19 virus is more genetically stable than the influenza virus and experts hope that the current vaccines will remain active for longer than one year. However there is simply not enough experience with the Covid-19 virus to be able to predict the likelihood of future mutations.

This post originally featured on johnwyatt.com.
Posted with permission.

The long-awaited news

So, on Wednesday 2 December, the UK became the first nation in the world to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine for medical use.  The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the medicines watchdog, had given it the thumbs up and granted it temporary authorisation.  The roll-out could begin.  Indeed, a lorry containing 800,000 doses of the vaccine was soon on its way from Pfizer’s production plant in Belgium.  V-day was almost here – within a week vulnerable citizens should be getting the jab.  The news was greeted with some cringe-worthy headlines, such as ‘what a shot in the arm for Britain’, ‘the candle of hope is now burning brighter’ and ‘a day to remember, frankly, in a year to forget.’  Apparently, the organisers of Wimbledon, Royal Ascot and the British Grand Prix have stepped up plans to host capacity crowds next summer – what a game-changer this vaccine is!

But let no-one forget the serious science and those steadfast scientists behind this medical triumph, namely a viable vaccine in 10 months instead of the usual 10 years.  Several researchers should be named in the Queen’s New Year’s honours list.  They deserve our profound gratitude.

A brief history of vaccination

Vaccines are a brilliant piece of medical weaponry.  Globally they save some 2 to 3 million lives each year from a range of diseases, such as diphtheria, tetanus, influenza, measles, mumps and rubella.

Vaccines have a fascinating history.  The main man here is Edward Jenner, an English country doctor with a novel notion.  He was the eighth of nine children born to Stephen Jenner, the vicar of Berkeley in Gloucester, and his wife.  During his medical practice Dr Jenner observed that milkmaids were generally immune to smallpox.  Jenner’s hypothesis was that the pus from their mild cowpox infections, an occupational hazard, protected them from the virulent smallpox.

On 14 May 1796, Jenner tested his hypothesis by inoculating James Phipps, the eight-year-old son of his gardener.  He scraped cowpox pus from the hands of Sarah Nelmes, who had caught it from a cow named Blossom.  Jenner inoculated Phipps in both arms that day.  A fever developed but no infection and no subsequent disease even when James was injected with smallpox material.  Bingo!  Vaccination was established, so called because ‘vacca’ is Latin for cow.  And such has been the success of vaccination that in 1979, smallpox was declared to be eradicated across the entire world.  Nice historical digression, wonderful treatment.

Should we be sceptical about vaccines?

Yes, a healthy dose of scepticism, rather than destructive cynicism, is appropriate whenever scientists, politicians and other so-called ‘experts’ speak.  Medicine is always experimental with associated risks – even a seemingly safe drug like paracetamol can be dangerous for some people.  And experimental science is based on the null hypothesis – a claim is not true until demonstrated otherwise.  So 1 Thessalonians 5:21 rings out, ‘Test everything.  Hold on to the good.’

The Big three

Of the 60 or so vaccines in phase 3 trials around the world, three are currently favoured by the UK government.  They are the Pfizer-BioNTech (US-German) vaccine, with two others from Moderna (USA) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (UK) waiting in the wings.  In common with all vaccines, they work basically by priming a person’s immune system to recognise and fight viral and bacterial infections.  These Big three are therefore regarded as the long-term answers (in contrast to the temporariness of lockdowns) to controlling SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, the disease.  They have all come through rigorously-conducted clinical trials in phase 3 involving thousands of human volunteers.

There are several classes of vaccines, but the Big three consist of two types.  First, there are messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines.  These take a portion of the genetic code of the spike protein, those knobbly bits on the virus, and when injected into human cells they produce spike protein to train the body to produce Covid-19 antibodies.  This mRNA technology is smart, but as yet untried.  It is the basis of both the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna vaccines.

Second, there are adenovirus vaccines.  The genetic code of the spike protein is added to a different, benign virus.  In the case of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, the latter is a harmless chimpanzee cold virus known as ChAdOx1.  Again, when injected into humans, the vaccine cells prime the body to produce Covid-19 antibodies.

As more vaccines come on stream other types, such as protein subunit and inactivated virus vaccines, will become more familiar as will manufacturers’ names like Novavax, Valneva, SinoPharm and Sputnik V.  The last two originated in China and Russia (of course!), where the authorities have pressed ahead with vaccinations without waiting for the results from large-scale efficiency trials and subsequent approval.

Besides the differing modus operandi of the Big three, other of their properties also vary.  For example, in phase 3 trials, the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were reported to be 95% efficient, while the Oxford-AstraZeneca product performed between only 62 and 90%.  The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine must be stored at -70⁰C and is stable for only 5 days at 4⁰C, while the Moderna product can be stored at -20⁰C for up to 6 months.  The Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine retains long-term stability at 4⁰C, namely within a domestic refrigerator, making it easier to handle.  Also costs vary.  The UK vaccine is cheapest at £3 per dose, followed by Pfizer-BioNTech’s at £15 and Moderna’s at £25.

Logistics of vaccinating

As wonderful as vaccines are, they need to be injected, from vial to deltoid.  It will take years to vaccinate a significant proportion of the world’s inhabitants.  Even the double-jabbing of much of the UK’s population is a massive undertaking.  About 400 million doses of different vaccines have already been purchased by the UK government.  The 40 million procured doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine will be sufficient for only about a third of UK citizens with the required two-shot regimen, administered 2 to 3 weeks apart.

How is this grand roll-out going to work?  Of course, GPs will play a central role.  And already midwives, dentists, airline staff, St John’s Ambulance volunteers and others have been recruited and trained in the vaccinator’s art.

The precious vaccine has been distributed in unmarked vehicles and stored in guarded facilities across the UK.  There have been reports of malicious hackers attempting to disrupt this supply chain.

Priority lists have been drawn up.  First, it is planned that care home residents and their staff plus healthcare workers will receive the jab during early December.  However, therein are considerable obstacles.  First, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is relatively unstable.  It is packed in boxes with dry ice for transporting and then it requires -70⁰C freezers for intermediate storage in hospital laboratories and the like.  The vaccine comes in vials of 5 doses, in large batches of either 975 or 4,875 vials per box.  Once opened that vaccine can be stored in a normal refrigerator, but only for 5 days.

So the plan is to distribute the vaccine to hospitals first, and then GPs and city hubs in stadiums and conference centres.  Within those sites healthcare workers can attend and be easily vaccinated.  But care home residents present another problem – most cannot attend vaccination hubs and the stored vaccine cannot be readily divided and stored as small sets of 20 or so for convenient care home usage.

Some additional questions

Everyone has questions.  What about known adverse side effects of Covid-19 vaccinations, such as injection site pain, fever and fatigue?  Will they deter people from going for the second jab?  What about having the first jab at a mass-vaccination site and the second at a GP’s surgery?  Must both jabs use the same vaccine?  Will vaccination dates be monitored?  Will records be kept?  If so, who keeps them?  Will ‘vaccination passports’ be issued as proof of protection?  And what about Covid-19 immunity over time?  Will it be effective for a year, a decade, a lifetime?  Or will revaccination be needed every year, like the flu vaccine?  Although the Big three seem to be effective in the prevention of symptomatic Covid-19 in people over 65, will these vaccines prevent transmission across all age groups?  And children have not been tested in these phase 3 trials, so what about vaccinating them?  And what happens if, and when, the coronavirus mutates, as other viruses often do?  Will current vaccines still be effective?  And when will the pharmaceutical companies improve their transparency?  When will they produce detailed, peer-reviewed reports of their methods and results?  At the moment we are subjected to scientific communication via press releases.  Should vaccinations be compulsory for all, or for certain occupations?  And if so, what about conscientious objection?

There are other questions, but, as yet, there are few answers principally because this anti-coronavirus enterprise is novel.  Covid-19 is a new disease, these are new vaccines and this mass vaccination programme is a new undertaking.  As the months pass more data, knowledge and insights will helpfully develop.  The future looks (mostly) bright(er).

Conspiracy theories

Some people do not like vaccination.  As well as those with vaccine hesitancy, they include the anti-vaxxers, misinformed sceptics and conspiracy theorists.  Here is a sample of negative memes circulating on social media.

In 1998, The Lancet published a study by Dr Andrew Wakefield and 12 colleagues that purported to find a link between the measles mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism in children.  However, the paper was later reported to be seriously flawed and fraudulent.  It was subsequently retracted by The Lancet.  Moreover, Wakefield lost his medical licence to practice.  But the saga lead to a fear over vaccination safety, a fear that has persisted and become a totem of the anti-vaxxer community.  The outcome was a significant reduction in vaccination rates and some countries, including the UK, lost their measles-free status.

Because the mRNA type of vaccines, including those from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, contain a fragment of genetic material from the virus, some fear that this could alter the DNA makeup of vaccinated people.  True, this m-RNA vaccine technology is new and never before used, but both biological science and the clinical trials give no support to this suggestion of infection or insertional mutagenesis.  The mRNA is quickly degraded and leaves no residue.

How about this for another conspiracy theory?  It claims that coronavirus vaccinations are a cover for implanting trackable microchips into people.  And Bill Gates, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft, is reckoned to be behind the scheme.  Despite a lack of evidence a YouGov poll in May found that 28% of Americans believed this wild and crazy ploy to be true.

It is sad to report that some Christians consider that these Covid-19 vaccines are malevolent.  Chief among them is the rapper and fashion designer, Kanye West.  During an interview, published in a July edition of the New Musical Express (NME), he revealed his suspicions about a Covid-19 vaccine, calling it ‘the mark of the beast’ (Revelation 13:15-17).  He claimed, ‘It’s so many of our children that are being vaccinated and paralyzed.  So when they say the way we’re going to fix Covid is with a vaccine, I’m extremely cautious.  That’s the mark of the beast.  They want to put chips inside of us, they want to do all kinds of things, to make it where we can’t cross the gates of heaven.’  This is not only an example of a poor understanding of vaccination medicine, it is also dreadful theology.  Yet it attracts a following.

And some ask, why get vaccinated against Covid-19 when the chances of dying from the virus are so remote?  An anti-vaxxer’s campaign on social media has stated that the recovery rate from the disease is 99.97% and therefore getting Covid-19 is safer than having a vaccination.  This claim is based on a statistical blunder.  The 99.97% figure is erroneously referred to as the ‘recovery rate’.  The truth is that about 99.0% of people who catch Covid-19 survive it.  So around 100 in 10,000 will die from it.  This is a far higher figure than the 3 in 10,000 as suggested on social media.  And anyway, vaccination is about more than death rates.  It is also about protecting the NHS from being overburdened with Covid-19 patients, as well as a personal and societal effort to protect others.

And there is the persistent allegation that Covid-19 vaccines are grown on foetal cells derived from abortions.  This important issue was discussed more fully in Coronavirus – Part 1, which can be viewed here. The conclusion was that, yes, abortion is an evil, a grave injustice, and yes, some vaccines commonly use cellular material originally derived from historic abortions, known as immortalised epithelial cells, such as HEK-293, in the production of vaccines, but not as components of any current Covid-19 vaccines.  Therefore, Christians may, with clear consciences, use Covid-19 vaccines, but with conditions as previously laid out in Coronavirus – Part 1.  Nevertheless, Christians will disagree on this issue.  And they may refuse to be vaccinated.  Yet, we should all bear in mind both Matthew 7:12 and Romans 14.

There is a reason I do not subscribe to Facebook, Twitter and the like.  Some of these social media giants have recently promised to remove from their platforms the false claims and conspiracy theories about Covid-19 vaccines.  We shall see.

Long Covid-19

This is potentially one of the greatest Covid-19 unknowns.  It is becoming clear that many organs besides the lungs are affected by the coronavirus and there are many additional ways the infection can affect a sufferer’s health.  While most people with Covid-19 recover and return to normal health, some patients have symptoms that can last for weeks, or even months, maybe years.

These long-term symptoms commonly include fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, joint and chest pain.  More serious long-term complications appear to be less widespread.  They typically affect different organ systems in the body, such as the cardiovascular, causing inflammation of the heart muscle, the respiratory system, causing lung function abnormalities and the renal system, causing kidney injury.  In addition, there are reports of smell and taste problems, sleep issues, difficulty with concentration, memory troubles, depression and anxiety.  The significance of long Covid-19 is unknown.  What is known is that Covid-19 can be more than an acute infection.

In conclusion

There is a growing, and dangerous, perception that because we have vaccines coming on stream the Covid-19 pandemic is over, or at least, almost over.  The truth is in three little words – IT IS NOT.  The death toll in the UK has recently passed 60,000.  That is the fifth highest figure in the whole wide world.  The rate of deaths, expressed as deaths per million population in the UK, is the fourth highest in the world.  Reported new cases of Covid-19 in the UK are still between 15,000 and 20,000 each day.

We are not doing well.  Things will not get better by Christmas, or maybe not even by Easter.  We need to behave like the best citizens – hands, face, space.  And we need to behave like the best Christians – pray, think, help.  And when the opportunity arises, roll up your sleeve and get vaccinated!

This post was first published at johnling.co.uk and has been reposted with permission.