Let's talk about how public health measures are impacting human rights, specifically for Clinically Vulnerable people and households.
1/
Masks are a vital protection for those with health conditions. The withdrawal of masks in healthcare is concerning.
Clinically Vulnerable people have lost freedoms and are facing discrimination in: workplaces; schools; court hearings & job centres; without remote options.
2/
'Personal responsibility' can't replace public health. Clinically Vulnerable people are unfairly burdened to protect themselves, while being denied basic rights.
This breaches their rights under Article 14 of the HRA, which guarantees the right to non-discrimination.
3/
Clinically vulnerable children are being denied safe schools and are being off-rolled by headteachers and local authorities due to government attendance targets. This violates their right to education under Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the HRA.
Concerningly, 18% of Clinically Vulnerable Families are forced to homeschool due to concerns about unsafe schools without proper air filtration.
This impacts their right to access education without discrimination, as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol 1 of the HRA.
5/
It's unacceptable that 99.6% of Clinically Vulnerable families feel unsafe in schools without proper air filtration and supported mask use for CVF.
This leaves them at constant risk of infection. Violating their right to health and well-being under Article 3 of the HRA.
6/
Clinically Vulnerable families have the right to a safe working environment, including air filtration. However, workers are losing jobs as employers refuse remote working or fail to provide safety measures.
7/
This breaches their rights under Article 4 of Protocol 1 of the HRA, which protects the right to work in just and favourable conditions.
8/
Over 50% of Clinically Vulnerable households have experienced mask abuse, discrimination due to wearing masks in public. Violating their right to freedom from discrimination and the right to respect for private and family life, as protected by Articles 14 and 8 of the HRA.
8/
Withdrawing #MasksInHealthcare puts vulnerable patients at risk of hospital-acquired infections. 30% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 are estimated to have acquired the virus in hospitals. This violates their right to life and health under Articles 2 and 3 of the HRA.
9/
#MasksInHealthcare are essential. Withdrawal violates their right to non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Human Rights Act. Clinically Vulnerable patients have the right to be treated equally and not face discriminatory treatment in the provision of healthcare services.
10/
The withdrawal of #MasksInHealthcare puts healthcare workers at risk, impacting their right to work in safe conditions, guaranteed by Article 4 of Protocol 1 of the HRA. Protective measures, including masks, must be provided to ensure their safety and well-being.
11/
Clinically Vulnerable people deserve equal rights. Yet, policies and measures often neglect their needs, leaving them behind. This violates their rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the HRA, which protects the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
12/
'Clinically Vulnerable' must be recognised under the law. Equal treatment and reasonable adjustments in the workplace and schools must be offered, in line with human rights.
13/
Employers and authorities *must* prioritise our safety and well-being to ensure that our rights under the Human Rights Act are respected.
14/
We need a society where public health measures are inclusive and respect the rights of all individuals, including the Clinically Vulnerable.
Clinically Vulnerable people should not be denied our fundamental rights.
We demand that our rights are protected under the HRA.
15/
The withdrawal of public health measures, including masks without any 'learning' such as air filtration, has had dire consequences for the human rights of Clinically Vulnerable individuals.
16/
Please do what you can to support us and sign and share our petition for #MasksInHealthcare.
Decisions presented as *choices* - but with no viable options - have meant that #3Years since lockdown our members continue to live reduced lives.
@RishiSunak's government do not care for vulnerable people & they don't want you to hear us.
🧵
We have lost our JOBS and HOMES.
By not making workplaces safe Clinically Vulnerable people have had to choose between lives and livelihoods.
One in four severely immunosuppressed people reported having lost a job due to the risks from Covid.
Most *chose* to quit.
2/
We have lost SCHOOLING.
Over half of Clinically Vulnerable Families report being encouraged by schools / local education authorities to withdraw their children from education by threatening fines and prosecutions.
We are * 3️⃣ YEARS * into a pandemic (ask the @WHO) and our needs have not been addressed.
Protections were withdrawn one by one and the removal of these measures has unfairly disadvantaged us.
1/
We are STILL HOME.
We are living part lives.
Our freedoms have been lost.
If you are not in a vulnerable group this information will likely have slipped you by. You will not have noticed us struggling because we are no longer in your view.
2/
We move around like ninjas.
We avoid crowded places.
We probably don't meet with you any more.
This is not through choice. This has been thrust upon us, by the same government that joked they would
"Let the bodies pile high in their hundreds of thousands.".
3/
We are concerned about the abrupt end to the Covid-19 Infection Survey which we feel will unfairly result in barriers and disadvantages to protected groups:
Disabled (those who are Clinically Vulnerable), Elderly and Ethnic Minorities.
@janemerrick23 explained the gold
standard' survey has been key to our
surveillance. The @WHO have not declared
an end to the pandemic and lives remain
under threat of death & serious injury (Long
Covid).
We need this information to risk assess. It also provides essential information on the impacts on our members.
When the government told us last year to Live with Covid they took away testing and isolation, measures that protected us all from infection and reinfection.
The prosecutions related to absences from a time *before* these highly vulnerable children were vaccinated.
The parents went to court, initially before Christmas without representation due to incredibly short notice (postal strikes were blamed).
They pleaded "NOT GUILTY".
2/
However, they were (like our previous family) also taken to a side room and advised to plead guilty by the prosecution lawyer. They were also told that they didn't need legal representation as nobody else usually does in these cases.
3/