Constitutional Court Verdict: Noncompliance of Covid-19 Vaccination Restrictions on Parliament Members in Latvia
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia has acknowledged that the restriction on a Member of Parliament who has not been vaccinated against Covid-19, preventing full participation in parliamentary activities, is not in compliance with the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court reviewed the restrictions that prohibited the MP from participating in parliamentary work, both remotely and in face-to-face meetings, from November 14, 2021, until March 31, 2022. The Court recognized that the purpose of vaccination was to increase vaccination coverage, aiming to reduce the number of individuals infected with Covid-19 and thereby alleviate the burden on hospitals and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, the legitimate purpose of the contested norm's restriction was the protection of public welfare. The imposed restrictions were deemed proportional in achieving the goal of protecting public welfare, according to the Court.
However, the Court admitted that it was the legislator's obligation to ease and adjust the restrictions according to the actual circumstances in the population. The legislator failed to do so in a timely manner, even after the emergency situation was lifted on March 1, 2022. Despite acknowledging an improved situation by February 28, 2022, the Parliament conducted its first meeting on March 3, 2022, while restrictions on the participation of unvaccinated MPs were still in force.
Consequently, the Constitutional Court emphasized that during March 2022, the restrictions did not comply with the Constitution. Regarding the applicant MP, the restrictions were deemed illegal from November 14, 2021, as remote participation should have been ensured for the MP without a vaccination certificate.
Link to the judgement in Latvian available at: https://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2022-20-01_Spriedums.pdf
Legal analysis of the judgment is futile for understanding the issue. In general, the Court demonstrates compassionate narcissism on topic where answers must be sought in the field of immunology, vaccinology and virology. In order to elaborate these field, some paragraphs shall be pointed out below.
The ruling ideology on the pandemic is based on the following premises:
- Vaccination against Covid-19 reduces infection and the spread of the virus.
- Vaccination against Covid-19 is the most effective tool for easing the workload of hospitals and the entire healthcare system.
- It is in the interest of every responsible citizen to stop the spread of the virus through the most effective measure.
- Therefore, vaccination against Covid-19 should be a mandatory obligation for every responsible citizen.
The premises are not completely flawed because the argument about effectiveness still holds some ground. However, only time separates us from the moment when it will be conventional wisdom that parenteral vaccines are not able to stop the infection with an mutable airborne respiratory virus. This is because systemic immunity plays a negligible role in terms of neutralizing capacity and the half-life of monomeric antibodies from circulation in the mucosa of the upper respiratory tract. In this region, polymeric secretory antibodies and tissue-resident immune cells maintain a secondary line of defense in parallel to the primary physical barrier made of nasal hairs, mucus produced by goblet cells, and ciliary beating of motile cilia.
It must be admitted that vaccination against Covid-19 was an effective way to reduce severe illness and prevent death from the infection. This is because vaccination induced immune tolerance against the new pathogen that could cause hypersensitive reactions in certain risk groups. The hypersensitive reaction could lead to hyperinflammation (cytokine storm) and hypercoagulation (fibrinogen clots and NET-derived immunothrombosis causing disrupted microcirculation in the microvasculature).
However, after the virus adjusted from its in vitro environment to the in vivo environment of the human population, it no longer required limiting its tropism to terminal airways cell lines. The upper airways mucosa became its most convenient cell type for propagation, where mast cell activation is not an issue, and severe Covid-19 does not occur anymore.
It is erroneous to argue that inducing immune tolerance towards the pathogen that has gained an evolutionary advantage by propagating multiple generations in human terminal airways cell lines is the most effective form of protection against infection with this respiratory virus. As with other self-limiting viral infections, the most effective treatment strategy is combination therapy, dealing with symptoms of the infection with agents addressing the pathophysiology caused by the virus. Regarding SARS-CoV-2-caused pathophysiology, anti-histamines address hypersensitivity, steroids address hyperinflammation, and anti-coagulants address hypercoagulation, while simple oral and nasal hygiene with antiseptics like hypertonic saline, hydrogen peroxide, povidone iodine, nitric oxide, etc., block the viral entrance in the body more effectively than any known and imaginable inoculation strategy.
When primary outpatient care is prohibited, it logically leads to an urge for centralized prophylactic measures to avoid overloading the workload of secondary and the entire healthcare system. Therefore, under conditions of non-existent outpatient care, vaccination will be the most effective centralized measure against a pandemic compared to lockdowns, masks, and other restrictions.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia is revolutionary. Before the recent pandemic, there was established case-law regarding vaccination that ensured:
- even in cases where the rejection of specific medical treatment may lead to a fatal outcome, the imposition of such medical treatment on a mentally competent adult patient will undermine his or her physical integrity and impinge on the rights protected under human rights laws, and
- the situation when such impingement is justified by means of compulsory vaccination for the attainment of the greater benefit of other individuals is when the policy of voluntary vaccination is not sufficient to achieve and maintain herd immunity.
From the beginning of the pandemic and also confirmed by the Court in the analyzed judgment, compulsory vaccination is no longer directed to protect the health of others but to achieve public welfare. From the beginning of the pandemic and also confirmed by the Court in the analyzed judgment, parenteral vaccination is the most effective tool for stopping the transmission of the mutating airborne respiratory virus.
Compulsory vaccination has evolved beyond its initial goal of achieving herd immunity. Rather than being solely focused on the collective health benefit, this medical procedure is now positioned as a means to enhance public welfare. The emphasis has shifted from a mere quest for herd immunity to a broader objective of overall societal well-being, thereby reframing the purpose of vaccination as a method for not just personal health improvement but also the advancement of aims beyond its legitimate reach. Wow!