From early on in the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, it became apparent that humanity was venturing into an extreme and ominous unknown. The rapid spread of the virus and its lethal consequences left us with no choice but to respond in accordance with the severity of the threat and its evasive evolution. Today, more than 203 million cases and 4.4 million deaths later, the virus remains rampant, and any doubts about its devastating nature and the need to join forces until this killer is defeated should have all but disappeared. One turning point in this battle to regain a degree of normality has been the campaign to vaccinate the maximum number of people in the shortest time possible. Not that long ago the world was longing for a vaccine, but now that several are available, a small but persistent minority is refusing to have the jab. The consensus among the scientific community regarding the efficacy of the vaccine and the low risk of harmful side effects leaves societies with an acute dilemma: How to persuade the anti-vaxxers to be inoculated without trampling on what many see as their basic right to make a free choice? Does protecting public health merit the use of incentives, or even sanctions, in order to encourage vaccination? I believe that on balance, and considering the enormous suffering in terms of lives lost and the hammer blows to our economies, it is entirely rational to lean on the skeptics, within reason and in accordance with the law, and persuade them to take the jab. After all, it is for the greater good of protecting the majority, especially the most vulnerable, from the inaction of those caught up in conspiracy theories and other fears propagated by baseless claims that spread quickly on social media and elsewhere. However, it would be wrong to simply dismiss people’s fears, regardless of how unsubstantiated they might be or how flimsy their sources. Concern over a vaccine that was produced in record time is not irrational. The aim should not be to judge people for the reasons they give for dodging vaccination but to encourage them to change their minds and get themselves vaccinated, for all our sakes. Their fears might be irrational, but not all human behavior is necessarily rational, and the reaction to vaccines is no different, especially at a time when many people have lost trust in governments and political establishments in general. Hence, the first course of action must be to address these fears, with a mixture of sensitivity and firmness. But beside a sensitive and logical approach, there should be steadfastness, because of the gravity of the situation. First and foremost, social media outlets and those who spread not only half-truths but also complete fabrications should face hefty fines if they refuse to desist. Social media platforms have for many years provided a home for conspiracy theorists. There is nothing resembling a theory, of course, in the tales they peddle. It is the duty of social media proprietors to put a stop to anti-vaccination propaganda, and if they will not, the law must intervene. It is the highest manifestation of immorality to profit from other people’s misery, and that is what social media companies are doing. Since an emergency is the only way to describe the current situation, some temporary measures that ban misinformation that is clearly baseless should not be regarded as an attack on freedom of speech, but as an act of saving lives. The truism promoted by anti-vaxxers that they have a right to control their own body and what may be done to it should not prevent societies from protecting themselves and barring the unvaccinated from certain public spheres. It reminds me in many ways of the debate more than a decade ago against smoking in public spaces. The outcry against prohibiting smoking in the workplace and places of entertainment, which framed it as a violation of one’s right to smoke, was no more than a self-indulgent claim by those who were happy to compromise other people’s health and well-being for their own short-lived pleasure. Now, people are allowed to smoke but not where they cause harm to others. With the COVID-19 vaccine, the stakes are even higher. Only a totalitarian regime would ever want to force people to take the vaccine; nevertheless, to withdraw some privileges, such as the right to be part of a crowded gathering, is not unreasonable, because on the balance of interests, the lives and health of others must override the right of unvaccinated people to visit a restaurant, sports event or concert. Not that long ago the world was longing for a vaccine, but now that several are available, a small but persistent minority is refusing to have the jab. Yossi Mekelberg The law is always a balancing act between our natural rights to be free to do whatever we like, and the greater good of our society, and the vaccination issue is no exception. We part with substantial amounts of our hard-earned money for government to decide how to redistribute such wealth for the improvement of our societies, and we are about to enter a phase in history in which to save the planet, legislation will change many of our acquired habits that have damaged it sometimes irreversibly. Vaccine passes or passports, in the current context, are not so much an infringement on our human rights as a tool, hopefully a temporary one, to lessen the impact of the current pandemic, and in the process save many lives and livelihoods. Those who still refuse to take the jab should remember that there are many millions of people across the world who are longing for access to vaccines. They probably look on those who refuse to be inoculated in wonder and disbelief. As do most of us who have been vaccinated. Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view