UFS MANDATES: Covid-19 shots for entry to the campus
The University of the Free State approved their “Covid-19 Regulations and Required Vaccination Policy” on 26 November 2021. In a nutshell, this means that from 14 February 2022 unvaccinated individuals will no longer be allowed entry to campus or any UFS property.
Vaccinated individuals - this will include any possible booster vaccinations prescribed by the authorities - receive a permanent QR code when they upload their vaccination certificates. They do not have to undergo any form of screening at the entry to the campus and are free to use all the entrance gates except one designated for unvaccinated individuals.
Contrary to this, unvaccinated individuals who wish to enter campus must submit proof of negative PCR test weekly at their own cost and must submit themselves for screening (completing a daily questionnaire), measuring of their temperature and review of their access permits and daily QR codes.
Exemptions will be “considered” on the basis of medical, religious and legal grounds. The stated criteria for these are restrictive and many possible plausible considerations will be ruled out.
The picture above was recently taken of Furstenburg Gate. This is the only gate where unvaccinated individuals may enter by car and is designated only for unvaccinated individuals. All other gates are available to vaccinated individuals with permanent QR codes where no screening will take place. The pedestrian entrance is also restricted to three turnstile gates and even at the gates where unvaccinated individuals are allowed to enter “preferential treatment will be given to those who have a vaccination certificate” according to UFS guidelines.
UFS claims that the individual still has the right of freedom to choose to comply with these rules in order to remain employed by, or remain enrolled at UFS. In fact, this implies a very real choice between the right to employment or education and the right to freedom of choice about receiving experimental interventions to one’s own body.
UFS further claims that if anyone does receive the vaccination, it is implied that they gave informed consent, and therefore the UFS will not be liable for any harm occurring as a result thereof.
“The UFS will also not be liable for reimbursement of fees, possible adverse effects or prejudice incurred due to 'non-adherence to any provisions in the Policy'".
The policy also includes fines and disciplinary action for non-adherence.
For some context please take note of the following:
On 16 December 2021, the official MAC (Ministerial Advisory Committee on Covid-19) presented an official communication to the Minister of Health about quarantining and contact tracing.
In this official state document of the Health Department, the following statements and recommendations were made:
“ Since then, several changes to the covid-19 situation have occurred. The proportion of people with immunity to Covid-19 (from infection and/or vaccination) has risen substantially, exceeding 60-80% in several serosurveys (testing for antibodies). We have learned about the manner in which Covid-19 is spread.“
They go on to say:
“Crucially it appears that efforts to eliminate and/or control the virus are not likely to be successful. Therefore it is critical that the role of containment efforts like quarantining and contact tracing is re-evaluated."
On page 2 they state:
“The definition of a 'high-risk contact' is based on an outdated understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2. The definition concentrates on droplet spread while ignoring aerosol spread, which can occur over distances greater than 1-1.5 metres, and also does not require as close a temporal association with the index case as droplet spread does."
This statement means that efforts such as the UFS Covid-19 policy is in fact obsolete and will hold no benefit to society or individuals at all, seeing as:
The number of people in South Africa who are already immune is extremely high. This means that in actual fact a mass vaccination campaign is not necessary and will not be beneficial. Secondly, the fact that the spread is now known to be by aerosol and not by droplet as was assumed at the beginning, means “social distancing” is not at all a sensible or beneficial measure.
The mode of spread also has implications for masking, which is really only considered to play some role in infections shared by droplet spread, not by the aerosol spread. Real-world data comparing countries, in close geological proximity, but with opposite strategies in terms of masking (and lockdown measures) are now available and do not show any benefit to masking (or lockdown measures).
(See PANDATA.ORG for statistical information and relevant articles).
The MAC goes on to say,
“in addition, it ignores the increased intrinsic transmissibility of subsequent variants of concern compared to the ancestral strain, as well as the fact that pre-existing immunity (from vaccination and/or natural infection) further changes the transmission dynamics.”
In other words, the assumption that “social distancing”, masking and lockdown measures have been built-on at the start have, by now, been completely shattered by new information and solid real-world data becoming available. This is the way of scientific knowledge, it changes as data become available.
“In addition, quarantining is not feasible in many social settings, and has a substantial economic and social burden in the current climate:
Point 1. Significantly depleting staffing levels at healthcare facilities and other.. which can threaten the integrity of these institutions;
Point 3. Significantly reducing economic and governmental activities due to high levels of staff absenteeism.
On an individual level, the consequences of prolonged quarantining include loss of income, loss of employment and loss of schooling time”
Preventing students and university staff from accessing campus for studies or work at no proven benefit, but at great cost to society and individuals, will only add to this unnecessary burden.
Not to mention the fact that all these people are discriminated against on totally arbitrary grounds, with no benefit attached for anyone, in spite of claims to the contrary.
The MACommittee then makes the following recommendations:
“We propose that quarantining be discontinued with immediate effect (their emphasis) for contacts of cases with Covid-19. This applies equally to vaccinated and non-vaccinated contacts.
No testing for COVID-19 is required irrespective of the exposure risk unless the contact becomes symptomatic”
Please compare this recommendation by the learned official committee, to the UFS policy which requires weekly PCR testing of healthy asymptomatic unvaccinated individuals (not even contacts) at the individual's own cost.
This is not about health, but rather about intimidating individuals who do not wish to take an experimental drug in spite of coercion to do so. It comes at threat of loss of employment and loss of access to further tertiary studies.
This official document was followed on the 23rd of December 2021 by an official circular from the Director general Health Republic South Africa to Heads of Provincial Health Departments with the heading:
“SUBJECT: REVISION TO TRACING, QUARANTINE AND ISOLATIONS PROTOCOLS: 23.12.2021”.
In this document, the recommendations of the MAC were given in more detail. It was signed by dr. SSS Buthelezi, Director-General: Health. Date 23 December 2021.
Both documents were unexpectedly retracted without good reason on the 28th of December 2021.
Regarding PCR tests:
A Laboratory Alert that was published on the official CDC website on 7/21/2021 under the heading: Lab alert: Changes to CDC RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 Testing which states:
"After December 31, 2021, CDC will withdraw the request to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel, the assay first introduced in February 2020 for detection of SARS-CoV-2 only. CDC is providing this advance notice for clinical laboratories to have adequate time to select and implement one of the many FDA-authorized alternatives.”
Dr P. McCullough, a highly-published cardiologist, internist and epidemiologist with years of experience in both clinical medicine as well as research, mentions in his talks that in June 2020/21 the WHO stated that testing of asymptomatic individuals (people who have no symptoms of the disease) is not indicated.
If the CDC withdrew their request to the FDA for emergency use authorization, and the WHO does not promote or advise the testing of asymptomatic healthy individuals, why is the UFS insisting on testing unvaccinated individuals once a week (and that at the individual’s own cost). Is this an attempt at coercion?
How many people, after the debilitating financial effects of measures taken in the name of health and safety, can afford to have weekly (outdated) PCR testing, simply to be allowed onto campus in order to further their studies or continue employment.
And if, as the MAC states, South Africa has exceedingly high levels of immunity already, and in the face of mounting evidence of rapid waning of protection after any of the available vaccine candidates (and all of them with only emergency use authorization), why is there still such immense and indeed increasing pressure for a mass-vaccination campaign and exclusion of unvaccinated individuals from society?
Also note that it is now not contested but accepted by all, that the vaccine candidates do not prevent infection of an inoculated person, nor do they prevent transmission of the infection by an inoculated person.
Official vaccine adverse event reporting sites VAERS and EUDRA show evidence of an extremely unfavourable adverse events and safety profile. Reported serious adverse events and deaths (only those reported on these official reporting sites) show more deaths and serious adverse events from these vaccine candidates than from all other previous vaccines in the previous 50 years of reporting onto these systems. These numbers are not contested.
Please consider brushing up on Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Bill of Rights. It is not a difficult read.
https://www.worklaw.co.za/SearchDirectory/Legislation/conchapter2.asp#j
Universities are public domains and receive government funding (from tax earnings) though they claim that they have the right to restrict access to their private property (and by doing so preclude unvaccinated individuals from studying or continued employment).
Without any doubt, the UFS policy limits severely multiple human rights set out by name in our Constitution. They claim a case of “greater good” but show no proof of such justification for the limitation of rights of so many affected individuals. Their whole case is based upon unproven assumptions and claimed authority (they state the UFS council has the final authority).
UFS claims that they are implementing this policy based on Regulations as per Government Gazette, No 44700, 11 June 2021. It is clear, however, that they are far exceeding, and in fact superseding, all requirements of relevant regulations.
General Notice nr 629, Government Gazette, 22/10/ 2021 on compensation for Covid-19 vaccination side effects.
The last sentence of the notice reads:
“Nota Bene: This Notice must not be interpreted to establish any law, regulation or rule that employers may subject their employees to vaccine inoculation against their will”.
UFS repeatedly claims that they are not forcing anyone to take the vaccination, but in fact giving them the freedom of choice to take it, or else lose their employment or study opportunities. To me, this is akin to saying a hijacker holding a gun to your head is giving you freedom of choice to hand over your car or not.
Individuals who wish not to take the vaccine candidates are not opposing other individuals’ freedom of choice to take them. They simply wish to make their own informed decision about their own bodies as do you.
If your opinion is that the UFS is overstepping their authority in implementing this restrictive and discriminatory policy, please lodge complaints with Senior University Officials.
Here are some email addresses of relevant UFS managers:
Rector@ufs.ac.za ; Ntsababann@ufs.ac.za ; Petersenf@ufs.ac.za ; Vjaarsj@ufs.ac.za
If you believe the mandates are overstepping authority, unconstitutional and unjustifiable, please consider supporting legal action to overturn this policy so students and employees may continue their studies and employment at UFS.
Universities Alliance is an NPC, formed to represent students and employees from Universities nationwide in this matter. Contributions may be made to support legal costs.
➥Contact info@unialliance.co.za for more detail.