Recent changes to the GBC vaccination policy, which scrapped in-person access to campus via a negative rapid test saw subsequent pushbacks from some students. The Dialog spoke to Ian Culbert, the executive director of the Canadian Public Health Association, in an exclusive interview to put things into perspective.

“People often hear mandatory, and they think that they are going to be strapped to a table and the vaccine is going to be injected into their arms against their will,” Culbert said. “But of course, that’s not what we are talking about. What we are talking about is placing limitations on activities that people can participate in if they choose not to be vaccinated.”

Founded in 1910, the Canadian Public Health Association focuses on promoting health equity, social justice and evidence-informed decision-making related to public health issues.

Stressing the value and necessity of vaccination requirements in educational institutions, Culbert pointed out that as an employer, colleges and universities have a duty to make their campuses a safe learning space.

“Everyone needs to do everything they can to reduce the spread of COVID-19, to reduce the strain on the acute care system, keeping people out of intensive care units,” he said.

In Culbert’s opinion, the ideal scenario would have been if high rates of vaccinations were achieved without requiring a mandate. “But as unfortunately that is not the case, these policies are required to be put in place to reopen our society and schools for in-person learning”.

Culbert believes that amending the GBC vaccine policy was the right move by the college. He emphasized the importance of available evidence indicating that rapid tests have certain limitations when it comes to its rate of accuracy.

“Rapid tests are not a reliable stopgap for preventing the spread of COVID, whereas vaccination truly is,” Culbert said. “As an unvaccinated person, you could be in the early stages of infection and not show any symptoms, test negative on a rapid test and transmit the virus to someone else. In fact, in this way the virus could be transmitted to someone who cannot be vaccinated due to an underlying health condition, putting them in greater risk.”

Addressing vaccine hesitancy in students, Culbert underlined the significance of understanding why students might choose not to be vaccinated and addressing those concerns through dialogue. “If there are any concerns over safety, I think there is adequate data that proves these are safe and effective vaccines,” he said.

“If some students are reluctant to take vaccines because they feel that mandating is an overstep by the government, then they should also reflect on the fact that we are told what not to do by the government all the time,” said Culbert. “Students are not allowed to consume alcohol or cannabis in classrooms. They are also encouraged not to come to class if they catch seasonal influenza, so vaccination requirements are definitely in line with providing health and safety for everyone.”

According to Culbert, in the context of the pandemic, the collective good trumps individual rights.

While admitting that facilitating one-on-one conversations with reluctant students can be time-consuming and require a lot of manpower, Culbert maintains that talking to students to understand and address their concerns is imperative.

He believes that people might have different underlying fears and worries. It could be something as simple as someone not liking needles.

Culbert noted that if we compare and contrast the risks between other health complications that could happen from contracting COVID-19 and the risks of side effects from the vaccines, the former poses a much greater risk.

Culbert also recommended that the college should make sure that the air filtration systems on campus are as efficient as possible, as a further step to stop the spread of COVID-19.