Attn Department of Conservation,

I am seeking information relating to DOC's policy to require "My Vaccine Pass" to access DOC facilities.

Does DOC hold any long-term safety data for any COVID-19 inoculations? If so, what is that data?

Does DOC hold any long-term efficacy data for any COVID-19 inoculations? If so, what is that data?

Does DOC hold any medical or scientific data indicating that COVID-19 inoculations are not "experimental" medical treatments? If so, what is that data?

Excluding hypothetical modelling data, has DOC based this policy on data and evidence indicating that, in settings where this policy is implemented, any COVID-19 inoculations prevent disease transmission of currently circulating COVID variants? If so, what is that data and evidence?

What is the reason(s) for implementing this policy to show a "My Vaccine Pass" to access DOC facilities? What basis of data and evidence, both for and against, formed the basis of implementing this policy? If this policy was implemented on the basis of something other than data and evidence, then on what basis was this policy based on?

Considering the stated reason(s) for implementing this policy, does DOC hold any risk/benefit analysis, demonstrating that the benefits of this policy outweigh the risks?

Considering the stated reason(s) for implementing this policy, does DOC hold any cost/benefit analysis, demonstrating that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs?

What ethical, legal, and human rights considerations has DOC given to this policy? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

What consideration has DOC given to this policy's effect on people to exercise their human rights to informed consent (including rights to informed refusal) to medical treatment? How does this policy respect individual human rights to not be subject to medical experimentation? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

What consideration has DOC given to this policy's effect on individual human rights to privacy and confidentiality of medical information? How does this policy respect individual human rights to refuse medical treatment, with or without reason? How does this policy allow people to not be subject to discrimination on the basis of their personal medical status? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

What consideration has DOC given to this policy's effect on individual human rights, and how that may expose proponents, advocates, and/or actors on behalf of such polices to culpability for human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

If a person is pressured into receiving this medical treatment in order to access DOC facilities, what liability does DOC accept for any adverse reactions such person may suffer, as a result of this medical treatment? If this has not been considered by DOC, then why has this not been considered?

Thank you,
ASE

Attn Department of Conservation,

Please consider this a revision to my recent request for information, dated 15 Jan 2022.

I am seeking information relating to DOC's policy to require "My Vaccine Pass" to access DOC facilities.

Does DOC hold any long-term safety data for any COVID-19 inoculations? If so, what is that data?

Does DOC hold any long-term efficacy data for any COVID-19 inoculations? If so, what is that data?

Does DOC hold any medical or scientific data indicating that COVID-19 inoculations are not "experimental" medical treatments? If so, what is that data?

Excluding hypothetical modelling data, does DOC hold any data and evidence indicating that, in settings where this policy is implemented, any COVID-19 inoculations prevent disease transmission of currently circulating COVID variants? If so, what is that data and evidence?

What is the reason(s) for implementing this policy to show a "My Vaccine Pass" to access DOC facilities? What body of data and evidence, both for and against, formed the basis of implementing this policy? If this policy was implemented on the basis of something other than data and evidence, then on what basis was this policy based on?

Considering the stated reason(s) for implementing this policy, does DOC hold any risk/benefit analysis, demonstrating that the benefits of this policy outweigh the risks?

Considering the stated reason(s) for implementing this policy, does DOC hold any cost/benefit analysis, demonstrating that the benefits of this policy outweigh the costs?

What ethical, legal, racial justice, and human rights considerations has DOC given to this policy? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

What consideration has DOC given to this policy's effect on people to exercise their human rights to informed consent (including rights to informed refusal) to medical treatment? How does this policy respect individual human rights to not be subject to medical experimentation? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

What consideration has DOC given to this policy's effect on individual human rights to privacy and confidentiality of medical information? How does this policy respect individual human rights to refuse medical treatment, with or without reason? How does this policy allow people to not be subject to discrimination on the basis of their personal medical status? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

What consideration has DOC given to this policy's effect on exacerbating issues of racial disparity and racial discrimination?

What consideration has DOC given to this policy possibly appearing as a use of pressure, force, fraud, deceit, duress, collective punishment, over-reach, or other ulterior forms of constraint or coercion to encourage, incentivize, or otherwise promote (experimental) medical treatments? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

What consideration has DOC given to this policy's effect on individual human rights, and how that may expose proponents, advocates, and/or actors on behalf of such polices to culpability for human rights violations, crimes against humanity, and/or war crimes? If these issues have not been considered by DOC, then why have they not been considered?

Excluding advice which is both (a) unsolicited and (b) from the general public; what advice and influence has DOC received about implementing this policy? Where did such advice come from?

If a person is pressured into receiving this medical treatment in order to access DOC facilities, what liability does DOC accept for any adverse reactions such person may suffer, as a result of this medical treatment? If this has not been considered by DOC, then why has this not been considered?

Thank you,
ASE