The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 01-11-2022 13G 13.G January 11, 2022 Council Meeting: January 11, 2022 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1 CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department Date: January 11, 2022 13.G Request of Councilmember Brock, Mayor Himmelrich, and Councilmember Parra that the City of Santa Monica implement by executive order or return with an emergency ordinance, as soon as possible, but no later than February 8, 2022, to require that employees and all persons entering certain indoor facilities be fully vaccinated (completed the series of any vaccine that has been approved or authorized by either the Food and Drug Administration or the World Health Organization) against COVID-19. Indoor facilities included in any order or ordinance should be establishments where food or beverages are served, gyms and fitness venues, entertainment and recreation venues, and personal care establishments. Any vaccine mandate shall also be reasonably applied to indoor City facilities to the extent possible. For City facilities, unvaccinated individuals should be provided alternative arrangements for reasonable access to City services, as practicable and appropriate, such as online or remote services, outdoor service, or proof of a timely and appropriate negative COVID-19 test to access indoor services that cannot be provided in other ways. 13.G Packet Pg. 4151 ATTACHMENT (Vaccine Mandate 13-Item) The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the California Department of Public Health, and the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health (DPH) uniformly recommend widespread vaccination to combat the spread of COVID-19, protect those who cannot be vaccinated by reason of age, safeguard the capacity of the local healthcare system, and prevent unnecessary and premature deaths. As our surrounding cities require proof of full vaccination to enter certain indoor businesses, along with the employees of certain indoor businesses to be fully vaccinated, it is incumbent upon the City of Santa Monica to do its part to keep our residents and visitors safe. To this end, at a minimum, this mandate should consist of the following: • A date certain by which all employees of certain indoor facilities be fully vaccinated and show proof of full vaccination to their employer. • A date certain by which all persons 18 years and older are required to show proof that they are fully vaccinated to enter certain indoor facilities and certain indoor City facilities. • Unvaccinated patrons without a negative COVID-19 test may go inside briefly to order food or use the bathroom while wearing a surgical or N-95 mask. People with proof of valid religious or medical exemptions should be exempt from the vaccination mandate as may be legally required. 13.G.a Packet Pg. 4152 Attachment: Attachment (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, January 10, 2022 7:57 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Item 13G, City council agenda, Jan 11 2022 Attachments:what works to increase vaccines.pdf From: Lyn Greenberg <lrgpers@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:41 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Item 13G, City council agenda, Jan 11 2022 EXTERNAL Mayor Himmelrich, Council, and Mr. White, Thank you to Councilmembers Brock and Parra and Mayor Himmelrich for putting this on the council agenda. It is overdue but a definite improvement. I apologize for the length of this email, but I wanted to provide the supporting information that might be useful to you. I am out of town so won't be able to speak at the meeting, but I have reached out to others and understand that you will be hearing from them. GENERAL SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION. While we hope Omicron will continue to be a milder form of the virus, the contagion and case counts are so high that hospitals are under strain. The scientific data are pretty clear that vaccinated and especially boosted people are far less likely to become seriously ill with Covid‐19, and they are also contagious for a much shorter time and are less likely to spread it. (I can obtain scientific references for you if you wish.) Unvaccinated people indoors for hours, not masked, are driving spread. That's dangerous to customers, restaurant workers, everyone they come in contact with, and all of the vulnerable people who need hospital care. PLEASE MAKE YOUR ACTION MEANINGFUL AND DURABLE.  Use CDC's updated definitions. While a vaccine mandate would be a vast improvement over current policy, the CDC has a definition of "up to date vaccination" that would allow our city to keep our policies consistent with current science, such as requiring booster shots if eligible. I have even seen some opponents of mandates argue that they are meaningless because two shots is no longer sufficient to completely defeat Omicron ‐ even though the vast majority of seriously ill people are unvaccinated. CDC's updated definitions can be found here: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ ncov/vaccines/stay‐up‐to‐date.html  Please tighten up the language on religious objections to the vaccine. As currently written, the language in 13G would allow anyone to claim a religious exemption and be allowed to be exempt from the ordinance, such as being indoors without a mask. The virus doesn't care why someone is unvaccinated ‐ unvaccinated people, especially in indoor settings without masks, spread the virus far more than vaccinated and boosted people do. As I'm sure Councilmember Parra knows, Culver City Item 13.G 01/11/21 1 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4153 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 and Los Angeles have much tighter requirements, such that people with religious objections to the vaccine still must eat outdoors or use other restaurant services (take out, etc.) so that they don't spread the virus. IMPACTS ON THE MEDICAL SYSTEM AND PATIENTS. Elective surgeries, including some cancer surgeries, are already being canceled. Response time for 911 calls is up, because ambulances are waiting at hospitals unable to unload their patients. This means that vaccinated people with other health conditions are more likely to die and suffer disability because they can't get treated promptly. The fact that 85% of city residents are vaccinated is great, but it's not enough if people aren't encouraged to get boosted and we allow unvaccinated people (from here or elsewhere) to create hazards for everyone. In addition, while it is true that a lower percentage of Omicron patients require ICU treatment than has been true for prior variants, the sheer number of cases has resulted in increased hospitalizations and deaths. Moreover, even if the patient is hospitalized for something else initially, more staff, resources and infection control procedures are needed for Covid+ patients, at a time when health care professionals have been quitting in droves (many because they feel unsupported by their communities) and others are out sick with Covid‐19. MANDATES CAN BE EFFECTIVE IN INCREASING VACCINATION RATES. I am attaching a scientific study on methods for improving vaccination rates. You will note from the highlighted portion that vaccine mandates , including restricting certain activities to vaccinated people, have been shown to be a reliably effective method of increasing vaccine uptake, even when one is unable to change a person's core beliefs about the vaccine. (Please see the attached article.) Improving vaccination and booster rates is critical to keeping schools and businesses open and stopping the development of new variants. Sadly there are people among us, as in all communities, who don't care enough about others to vaccinate for that reason, or have been misled by false information. It's a long road to get some people to agree with vaccination, but even some of those who don't agree will get vaccinated in order to participate in indoor activities or work in certain settings ‐ and that protects everyone. RESPONSIBLE BUSINESSES, AND THEIR WORKERS, WILL BENEFIT. I would also urge you to resist predictions that this will cause horrible harm to business. The cities around us have been doing it and there have been no major problems. We have long been supporters of the restaurant industry, especially in Santa Monica. We know that in addition to other struggles with the pandemic, they are all suffering with labor shortages. But surveys have also shown that many of the people, especially women, who are staying out of the workforce are making that choice because they are afraid they won't be safe at work. By requiring up‐to‐date vaccination among both employees and customers, everyone will be safer. When our regulations are weaker than those around us, we invite the most irresponsible customers to our city and force vaccinated and boosted people to isolate or patronize businesses outside the city. Some restaurants, like those in the Rustic Canyon group and Socalo, are showing that they are in this fight with us. It's not too much to expect that others do the same. I have been a proud resident of Santa Monica for over 30 years. The Santa Monica I'm proud to live in is the one that is reaching out to victims of discrimination in housing and development and inviting them to return. Santa Monica has also done a great job in promoting vaccination and making it and testing available. But city leadership has held back for far too long on other issues. Even after the contagion of Omicron was announced, our city was allowed to become a Mecca for the unvaccinated. We will never know how many cases that created. as visitors who came here may well have waited until they got home to test. Please, act like the city I'm proud to live in again. And find yourself some physician advisors ‐ you rely on engineers and architects when you make decisions in their fields. Should you do less in this area? I'm happy to recommend people if you wish, but I'm sure that the infectious disease department of UCLA will be a great place to start. Item 13.G 01/11/21 2 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4154 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Thank you for considering this information. Happy New Year. ‐‐ Lyn Greenberg Item 13.G 01/11/21 3 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4155 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PARENTS AND PATIENTS What Works to Increase Vaccination Uptake Noel T. Brewer, PhD From the Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC The author has no conﬂicts of interest to disclose. Address correspondence to Noel T. Brewer, PhD, Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, 325 Rosenau Hall CB7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (e-mail:ntb@unc.edu). Received for publication April 27, 2020; accepted January 29, 2021. TAGGEDPABSTRACT Behavioral science offers several ideas about what it takes to get people to vaccinate. Colleagues and I previously reviewed the evidence for these propositions and put forward what has become known as the Increasing Vaccination Model. To make the model more accessible to practitioners, the current paper summarizes the main insights from the earlier work. First, observational studies show clearly that thoughts and feelings are correlated with vaccine uptake. Such constructs include perceived risk of harm from infectious disease and conﬁdence in vaccine safety and efﬁcacy. However, interventions have not generally shown that changing thoughts and feelings increases vaccine uptake. Second, social processes are promis- ing in observational studies. Such constructs include social norms, altruism, and sharing through social media. More research is needed in this promising area before it will be pos- sible to conclude whether social processes are effective inter- vention targets. Third, interventions that directly change behavior—without trying to change what people think or feel or their social experience—are reliably effective ways to increase vaccine uptake. Such interventions include reminders, defaults, and vaccine requirements. Finally, the most potent intervention for increasing vaccine uptake is a health care provider recommendation, but it is still unclear whether such recommendations are effective because they increase conﬁdence, set a social norm, or reﬂect a direct behavior change technique. The paper ends by describing use of the model by a World Health Organization working group as it considers opportunities to address low vaccina- tion uptake globally. TAGGEDPKEYWORDS:nudges; social networks; vaccination; vaccine conﬁdence ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS 2021;21:S9-S16 TAGGEDPWHAT THIS NARRATIVE Review Adds Our previous review on increasing vaccine uptake has been widely used, but its complexity has hindered its use by some practitioners. This brief and accessible article will allow people to more readily understand the key ﬁndings. BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE OFFERS several ideas about what it takes to get people to vaccinate. The 3 main propositions are that vaccination results from: 1) what people think and feel; 2) social processes; and 3) direct behavior change (Fig. 1). Colleagues and I previously reviewed the evi- dence for these propositions and put forward what has become known as the Increasing Vaccination Model. 1 That paper generated substantial interest from public health organizations, including the World Health Organi- zation (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vaccine manufacturers, researchers, and practitioners. However, its length and complexity have been barriers to the model’s use by some practitioners. To facilitate wider adoption of the model, this paper summa- rizes the main insights from the earlier work and describes use of the model by a WHO working group as it considers opportunities to address low vaccination uptake globally, especially through effective interventions. Vaccination is one of the most widely accepted health behaviors. Globally, 86% of children have received a measles vaccine, and that percentage is higher in North America and Europe as of 2018. 2 Coverage is even higher for the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine. These high rates have caused the incidence of many infectious diseases to plummet in the decades since relevant vaccines have been introduced. Such successes have led to calls for complete eradication of polio and regional elimination or control of other diseases through vaccina- tion. Indeed, at the start of this decade, WHO and other organizations designated 2011-20 as the Decade of Vaccines. However, by 2019, WHO had declared vaccination hes- itancy to be one of the top 10 threats to global public health.2 This threat could have several consequences. Inadequate coverage is the uptake of vaccination that fails to meet an agreed-on quality marker (eg, 90% coverage). While global vaccination coverage rates have steadily drifted upward, they have stalled in some regions and ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Copyright ©2021 by Academic Pediatric Association S9 Volume 21, Number 4S May-June 2021 Item 13.G 01/11/21 4 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4156 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) even slipped backward in a few countries.Delay is getting vaccines after the recommended age or spreading the doses out over time. Despite clear ﬁndings that the current vaccination schedule is safe, parents are increasingly choosing to spread out or delay vaccines in the mistaken belief that having fewer vaccines at one time will reduce the risk of harm.Instability is variability in coverage over time, most often a sharp drop. Some countries with gener- ally high vaccination coverage have experienced periods of dramatic instability. For example, Japan had achieved 70% coverage for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccina- tion, yet coverage fell to 7% within a year of an unsub- stantiated safety scare. Denmark had a similar issue that it was able to turn around, but only after coverage had fallen by half. 3 The model is about what works to increase vaccination uptake, which results from a series of behaviors by vari- ous actors. The family may talk about vaccines with friends, search for information online, schedule an appointment, travel to a clinic, consent to vaccination, return for any needed follow-up doses, and pay any related costs, such as an administration fee or travel expenses. Providers stock vaccines, recommend them, track their use in medical records, ﬂag who is due and overdue, and manage their vaccine stock. All of this is in a context of a system in which the state funds some vacci- nations and, in some countries, private insurance covers other vaccinations. In sum, vaccination uptake results from a web of interconnected players, resources, and behaviors, all of which follow predictable patterns. TAGGEDH1WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL The model’s ﬁrst broad proposition is that what people think and feel motivates vaccination uptake (Fig. 2). On the left side of the ﬁgure,disease risk appraisals are thoughts and feelings about potential health problems caused by infectious agents (perceived risk and fear);vac- cine conﬁdence is the attitude that vaccines are good (effective) or bad (unsafe). Risk appraisals and conﬁdence motivate people to vaccinate or not to do so, as shown in the middle. Another term for low motivation to vaccinate What people think and feel Risk appraisals Confidence Motivation, hesitancy Vaccination uptake Scheduling appointment Consent Delay Refusal Social processes Social norms Social networks Altruism Direct behavior change Building on existing motivation Shaping behavior Figure 1.The Increasing Vaccination Model. 1 Disease risk appraisal Motivation (or hesitancy) Vaccine confidence Vaccination uptake (or refusal, delay) Figure 2.What people think and feel. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science. TAGGEDENDS10 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Item 13.G 01/11/21 5 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4157 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) is hesitancy. While some people use the terms conﬁdence and hesitancy interchangeably, it is helpful to separate these ideas: low conﬁdence is a cause of low motivation to vaccinate in the model and indeed in research going back 50 years. 4 Finally, motivation to vaccinate leads to vaccination uptake, shown in the right. Getting vaccinated can lower some appraisals of disease risk and increase vaccine conﬁdence, as shown by the arrows going from the far right back to the left. 5 Findings from observational studies support the thoughts and feelings proposition. Vaccine uptake is asso- ciated with higher disease risk appraisals including think- ing infectious diseases are likely, serious, and regrettable.6,7 Similarly, vaccine uptake is associated with higher vaccine conﬁdence, as shown by believing that vaccines are important, save lives, and have few side effects. Finally, motivation to vaccinate, also called inten- tion, is one of the strongest predictors of health behaviors, including vaccine uptake. 8 However, experimental evidence from randomized tri- als generally does not support the thoughts and feelings proposition. This stronger body of evidence better answers the question of whether interventions focused on thoughts and feelings can increase vaccine uptake. Risk communication interventions did not appreciably increase vaccine uptake, according to a recent meta-analysis of 16 studies, although the interventions somewhat increased the belief that infectious diseases are likely. 9 An older meta-analysis, restricted to 5 risk communication inter- ventions that increased risk appraisals, did ﬁnd increases in vaccine uptake. 10 Similarly, interventions to boost vaccine conﬁdence have generally not increased uptake, and none have shown that increased conﬁdence explains the interventions’ impact. While some intervention studies have increased vaccine conﬁdence, including beliefs that vaccines are safe and effective, 11,12 others have not. 13 Finally, interventions to increase motivation to vac- cinate have not shown reliably that they can inﬂuence hesitant people, despite success at increasing motiva- tion for other behaviors. 14 Decision aids have little support in increasing vaccine uptake. Motivational inter- viewing, while promising, has yet to be shown effective in a randomized trial, although it has been included as one component of several effective multicomponent interven- tions15 and has shown promise in quasiexperimental studies.16 In sum, while thoughts and feelings motivate people to get vaccinated, interventions targeting thoughts and feel- ings have shown little promise for reliably increasing vac- cine uptake. Furthermore, there is no apparent logic as to when interventions boost vaccine risk appraisals and con- ﬁdence, have no effect, or even have pernicious effects. I return later to the question of whether thoughts and feel- ings interventions might generate support for vaccination policies and programs, an important outcome that is dis- tinct from vaccination uptake. TAGGEDH1SOCIAL PROCESSES The model’s second broad proposition is that social processes motivate vaccine uptake (Fig. 3). The social network, the collection of connections among people is shown in the left side of the ﬁgure. These networks have the characteristic of similarity or homophily—birds of a feather ﬂock together. Social networks exert inﬂuence through contagion, that is, through the spread of ideas and behaviors. This spread, shown in the middle, establishes social norms, what most people do and or expect others to do, along with social preferences (altruism, vaccinating to protect others, and free riding, not vaccinating because others already have). Finally, social norms and preferen- ces about vaccination lead to vaccination uptake,as shown in the right. Findings from observational studies reliably support the social processes proposition. Social networks are well characterized and show robust clustering of people with similar ideas about vaccination in social spaces. 17 Social norms are reliably associated with vaccine uptake, 18 with somewhat less evidence showing smaller associations for social preferences. Behavioral scientists have generated substantial and convincing experimental evidence on these questions in the context of vaccination, but almost all of it has nonbehavioral outcomes. No published randomized trials to date have established that social process interventions increase vaccine uptake, Contagion Vaccination uptake (or refusal, delay) Social preferences Altruism Free-riding Social network Homophily Social space Person’s mind Social norms Figure 3.Social processes. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science. TAGGEDENDACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S11Item 13.G 01/11/21 6 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4158 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) but this is a very promising area for future research. Some quasiexperimental studies suggest that social processes show potential, and several currently unpublished studies may soon ﬁll this gap. Research on other health behaviors suggests why social process interventions may succeed where thoughts and feelings interventions fail. The “one communicator and one receiver” model of education is the way to change what people know. However, to change what people do, information must come from multiple people in the per- son’s social network. 19,20 Such social processes are espe- cially pertinent in an era deﬁned by social media, antivaccine activists, and misinformation. Stories that go viral evoke strong feelings, include rich narrative detail, and offer a simple “gist” or take-home message. 21 Sci- entists and their research rarely offer any of these things. Experts are bringing research papers to a ﬁre- ﬁght and, in doing so, they have lost before they even started talking. The consequence is that antivaccine activists were, for a while, dominant on many social media platforms. More recently, citizen and scientist activists have fought back with increasingly effective tools. Examples include the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable which created videos of people affected by HPV cancers and their doctors in order to make the consequences of the diseases more vivid. The WHO created a manual for addressing vaccine deniers in public. 22 Shots Heard Round the World developed a rapid-response collective of volunteers to defend health care providers attacked for their vaccine advocacy. Quantifying the impact of anti- and provaccine activism and tools is an important area for new research. TAGGEDH1DIRECT BEHAVIOR CHANGE The third broad proposition in the model is that foster- ing direct behavior change increases vaccine uptake (Fig. 4). The general idea is that one can increase vaccine uptake without ever changing what people think and feel or the social world they encounter. Thus, direct behavior change takes motivation as a given. One can build on favorable intentions to vaccinate, pouring gas onto a lit ﬁre, by keeping vaccination on people’s minds and reduc- ing barriers to it. Alternatively, one can ignore intentions altogether and shape behavior with incentives, sanction, and requirements—techniques that do not rely on predis- position to vaccinate. These interventions lead to vaccina- tion uptake, shown in the right. One approach to direct behavior change is to build on people’s good intentions. That means, ﬁrst, to identify the people who already intend to vaccinate or are open to it, and then to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Interventions include keeping vaccination on people’s minds with reminders and prompts and reducing barriers with default appointments, standing orders, and other logistical and behavioral defaults. Randomized trials gen- erally support the use of building on vaccination inten- tions to increase uptake. Another approach is to shape behavior with incentives, sanctions, or requirements, including work and school vaccination mandates. Again, randomized trials have repeatedly found support for the effectiveness of behavior-shaping interventions. The key shared characteristic of these strategies is that they use policies and practices to increase vaccination without changing what people think or feel. Direct behavior change interventions are the most reliably effective option available, but they do have limitations. For example, while vaccination reminder/ recall interventions are effective, few clinics effectively implement them. In one randomized trial, less than 1% of families received a reminder/recall letter or call when the task was assigned to clinics, but 87% received the notices when the county health department handled the responsibility. 23 Furthermore, notices from a cen- tralized source are more effective when they include the name of the patient’s provider. 23 In another exam- ple, school requirements (sometimes called mandates) effectively increase uptake of most vaccines 24 but do not raise HPV vaccine uptake among adolescent girls. 25 As well, the process of implementing requirements can create substantial work for immunization programs and distract their staff from other essential tasks. 26 All of that suggests that the right implementation strategy is critically important for direct behavior change interventions. Motivation (or hesitancy) Vaccination uptake (or refusal, delay) Build on favorable intentions Keep vaccination on people’s minds with reminders, prompts, and primes Reduce barriers with logistics and behavioral defaults Shape behavior Implement incentives, sanctions, and requirements Figure 4.Direct behavior change. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science. TAGGEDENDS12 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Item 13.G 01/11/21 7 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4159 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) TAGGEDH1OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Several important considerations should guide practi- tioners and scientists using this model. TAGGEDH2PROVIDER RECOMMENDATIONSTAGGEDEND By far, the single most potent intervention for increas- ing vaccine uptake is a provider recommendation. 27 How- ever, it is still unclear whether recommendations are effective because they increase conﬁdence, set a social norm, or reﬂect a direct behavior change technique. Quite possibly, provider recommendations exert inﬂuence through all 3 of the model’s behavioral propositions. The most active aspect of the model from the standpoint of provider recommendations may be direct behavior change, given the few barriers present in many clinics: the vaccine is in stock, staff can deliver it, and a state pro- gram or private insurance generally covers the cost. Given that providers have more power than patients in clinical interactions, injunctivesocialnormsarealso likelytoplaysomerole.Itmayevenbethatproviders persuasively shape what people think and feel by building on their unique relationship with the families they see. Research is needed to elucidate basic ques- tions about what makes provider recommendations most effective. While most evidence for provider recommendations is correlational, several trials have focused on the impact of training providers to communicate more effectively about vaccination. In my own research, 28 colleagues and I have trained providers to raise the topic of adolescent vaccina- tion using presumptive language 29 that we call an “announcement” and then to use a structured communica- tion approach if questions come up. A presumptive announcement might sound like this: “Now that Sophia is 12, she is due for 3 vaccines. Today, she’ll get vaccines against meningitis, HPV cancers, and whooping cough.” The Announcement Approach Training is a 1-hour, physi- cian-led, in-clinic training, offered with continuing medi- cal education credits (materials are available at hpvIQ. org). The training increased HPV vaccine uptake by 5% within 3 months 28 and has now been delivered to over 1700 providers in the United States and the United King- dom. This communication approach builds on direct behavior change principles by assuming most parents just need a prompt to vaccinate. TAGGEDH2INTERACTIONS AMONG THE PROPOSITIONSTAGGEDEND No strong data are available to explain how the 3 parts of the model interact, but I offer my own specula- tion, based on correlational studies and insights I have gathered from people on the frontlines of vaccination. First, although interventions to change what people think and feel may not change behavior directly, they may provide other indirect beneﬁts. Most of the policies and programs aimed at direct behavior change—by far the most effective way to increase vaccination uptake— require public conﬁdence in vaccination. Thus, interven- tions that increase vaccine conﬁdence may create an environment that supports direct behavior change inter- ventions. Second, interventions to change social processes may also change what people think and feel about diseases and vaccination. Although this has not yet been well-docu- mented in the context of vaccination, it is a reasonable speculation based on social network studies in other areas. Third, implementing direct behavior change interven- tions almost certainly affects other parts of the model. For example, establishing or removing vaccine recommenda- tions, or imposing requirements for certain vaccines, likely affects conﬁdence in vaccination. Similarly, leaders standing up for existing policies may bolster conﬁdence, while setting the policies aside in the face of public oppo- sition may erode conﬁdence in vaccination. TAGGEDH2GLOBAL SETTINGSTAGGEDEND Most vaccination intervention studies are from the United States, and some are from other high-income coun- tries. Only a handful of intervention studies from low- and middle-income countries have examined vaccination incentives and educational programs. While these have generally shown the same results as studies in high- income countries, caution is warranted in applying the interventions to global settings until formative work is done within the local communities and perhaps trial-level evaluations are conducted. Such research could be a 2- way street, with vaccination programs in high-income countries beneﬁtting from learning what is effective in increasing vaccine uptake in low- and middle-income countries. TAGGEDH2TIMELINESS AND STABILITYTAGGEDEND The available evidence primarily examines vaccine uptake. Because few studies are available on vaccination timeliness and stability, application of the model to these outcomes remains preliminary and warrants additional study. An area of growing interest is understanding what leads to and sustains the resilience of vaccination programs. TAGGEDH1ADAPTATION OF THE MODEL BY WHO Following on WHO’s designation of vaccine hesi- tancy as one of the top 10 threats to global public health, the agency established an expert working group to identify the behavioral and social drivers of vacci- nation uptake around the world. The working group has adapted the Increasing Vaccination Model, as shown in Figure 5, as the basis for its work. The boxes in the model have remained the same over time, even as the working group has continued to winnow the list variables in each box. Among the noteworthy highlights from that adaptation: The box for what people think and feel does not include risk appraisals. The working group started with a childhood vaccine survey, but parents struggled to think about vaccine-preventable infections without TAGGEDENDACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S13Item 13.G 01/11/21 8 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4160 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) speciﬁc examples. The group has incorporated risk appraisals in later surveys on speciﬁc vaccines (eg, coronavirus disease 2019). Motivation to vaccinate is in its own box, allowing the working group to emphasize the difference between conﬁdence and hesitancy. Provider recommendation is in the social process box. This categorization was not a settled issue in the origi- nal paper, but it allowed the working group to keep track of this important variable. The direct behavior change box is renamed “practical issues” and drops the distinction between building on favorable intentions and shaping behavior. Many working group members had roles in vaccination programs globally, which led them to see observable barriers and practical issues as especially important. They felt that the new name emphasized barriers that surveys can measure and vaccination programs can address. Before using the Increasing Vaccination Model, the working group had not engaged with the several concepts related to social processes. The model caused a shift in their thinking in that domain, leading the group to Vaccination Child receives recommended vaccines Motivation Intention to get recommended vaccines for child Practical issues Know where vaccine is available Ease of access Affordability Service quality Respect from provider What people think and feel Confidence in vaccine benefits Confidence in vaccine safety Confidence in provider Religious beliefs Social processes Provider recommendation Family supports vaccination Community supports vaccination Gender equity Figure 5.Adaptation of the increasing vaccination model by WHO working group. Table.Impact of Interventions to Increase Vaccination Uptake TAGGEDENDS14 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Item 13.G 01/11/21 9 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4161 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) consider the roles of families, community leaders, and gender equity. Based on their adapted model, the WHO working group has developed a survey on the behavioral and social drivers of vaccination around the world. The survey is being piloted in 6 low- and middle-income coun- tries and should be available for use globally in 2021. TAGGEDH1CONCLUSION Direct behavior change is clearly the most promising approach to increasing vaccination uptake and research supports the use of many different techniques, as shown at the bottom of Table.1 No single intervention is effective on its own, however, making it necessary to adopt more than one. Insofar as each intervention acts on different parts of the system that provides vaccination, their combi- nation may be truly additive or even multiplicative in their effects. It is also possible that the initial intervention acti- vates the “easy” cases to vaccinate, and that additional interventions add little. More information is needed on this topic, but given the high cost of trials, and the difﬁ- culty in evaluating the impact of individual factors in mul- ticomponent interventions, such knowledge may be out of reach. In contrast, interventions to change what people think and feel are often expensive and hard to sustain, and they may not be especially effective (as shown at the top of Table). An important caveat here is that interven- tions by health care professionals in clinical settings may be inﬂuential if they effectively use communica- tion approaches based on information, persuasion, and engaged listening. Interventions targeting social processes are promising insofar as they build on multiple nodes of social networks or happen in clinical settings. In this era of social media and vocal vaccine activism, the conversations about vac- cination, both in the public sphere and in private settings, have an outsized inﬂuence on programs and policies. What this adds up to remains to be seen, but research is underway that should shed light on the pitfalls and prom- ises of social processes. Thinking more broadly about public support for vacci- nation, work is needed to understand how to ensure resil- ience in the face of safety scares. Interventions to boost vaccine conﬁdence may not increase vaccination uptake directly, but they may have a side beneﬁt of increasing support for effective policies and programs. Interventions through social media—to add supportive stories and infor- mation or to limit misinformation—may also increase vac- cination support. Other strategies can also be considered, including targeted efforts when new vaccines are launched and to address unsubstantiated vaccine scares; indeed, data are accumulating to support the value of efforts by coun- tries to bolster conﬁdence during such scares. 3 As we move into a new decade, it is essential to ensure the resilience of vaccination programs, and the global suc- cess story they represent. The Increasing Vaccination Model offers important insights to support such efforts. Building on the large existing body of evidence can ensure a steady path forward for vaccination programs globally. TAGGEDH1ACKNOWLEDGMENTSTAGGEDEND Financial disclosure:This article was published as part of a supple- ment sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Disclaimer:The ﬁndings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the ofﬁcial position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I thank Dr Valerie Reyna for commissioning it; my intrepid collabo- rators, Dr Gretchen Chapman, Dr Alex Rothman, Dr Julie Leask, and Dr Allison Kempe for tolerating 2 years of weekly meetings and 2 multiday retreats; and Dr Jennifer Spencer for her inspired research support during the literature reviews. I thank Dr Bruce Gellin for inspiring it and Karyn Feiden for her expert editing. Finally, I thank Dr Julie Leask and Lisa Menning for championing the model at the World Health Organization and elsewhere. Financial statement: Funding for writing the current brief overview came from the Aspen Institute and the Sabin Foundation. Previous presentations: The original article on the Increasing Vaccination Model appeared in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.1 TAGGEDH1REFERENCES 1.Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Rothman AJ, et al. Increasing vaccina- tion: putting psychological science into action.Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017;18:149–207. 2. World Health Organization.Global health observatory data: mea- sles-containing-vaccine ﬁrst-dose (MCV1) immunization coverage among 1-year-olds. 2019. Available at:https://www.who.int/gho/ immunization/measles/en/. Accessed July 2, 2020. 3.Hansen PR, Schmidtblaicher M, Brewer NT. Resilience of HPV vaccine uptake in Denmark: decline and recovery.Vaccine. 2020;38:1842–1848. 4.Sheeran P, Maki A, Montanaro E, et al. The impact of changing atti- tudes, norms, and self-efﬁcacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis.Health Psychol. 2016;35:1178. 5.Brewer NT, Weinstein ND, Cuite CL, et al. Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior.Ann Behav Med. 2004;27:125–130. 6.Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, et al. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the exam- ple of vaccination.Health Psychol. 2007;26:136. 7.Brewer NT, DeFrank JT, Gilkey MB. Anticipated regret and health behavior: a meta-analysis.Health Psychol. 2016;35:1264. 8.Sheeran P. Intention-behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review.Eur Rev Social Psychol. 2002;12:1–36. 9.Parsons JE, Newby KV, French DP. Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23:1084–1106. 10.Sheeran P, Harris PR, Epton T. Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experi- mental studies.Psychol Bull. 2014;140:511. 11.Horne Z, Powell D, Hummel JE, et al. Countering antivaccination attitudes.Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:10321–10324. 12.Shah PD, Calo WA, Gilkey MB, et al. Questions and concerns about HPV vaccine: a communication experiment.Pediatrics. 2019;143: e20181872. 13.Nyhan B, Reiﬂer J, Richey S, et al. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial.Pediatrics. 2014;133:e835–e842. 14.Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull. 2006;132:249. 15.Dempsey AF, Pyrznawoski J, Lockhart S, et al. Effect of a health care professional communication training intervention on adolescent human papillomavirus vaccination: a cluster randomized clinical trial.JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172. e180016-e180016. TAGGEDENDACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S15Item 13.G 01/11/21 10 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4162 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 16.Gagneur A, Lema^ıtre T, Gosselin V, et al. A postpartum vaccination promotion intervention using motivational interviewing techniques improves short-term vaccine coverage: PromoVac study.BMC Pub- lic Health. 2018;18:811. 17.Dunn AG, Surian D, Leask J, et al. Mapping information exposure on social media to explain differences in HPV vaccine coverage in the United States.Vaccine. 2017;35:3033–3040. 18. Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, et al. Barriers of inﬂuenza vaccina- tion intention and behavior—a systematic review of inﬂuenza vac- cine hesitancy, 2005-2016.PloS One. 2017;12:e0170550.https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170550. 19.Centola D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment.Science. 2010;329:1194–1197. 20.Centola D. The social origins of networks and diffusion.Am J Sociol. 2015;120:1295–1338. 21.Reyna VF. A new intuitionism: meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace theory.Judgm Decis Making. 2012;7:332–359. 22.WorldHealthOrganization.How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public. 2016. Available at:https://www.who.int/ immunization/sage/meetings/2016/october/8_Best-practice-guid- ance-respond-vocal-vaccine-deniers-public.pdfTaggedEnd. Accessed July 2, 2020. 23.Kempe A, Saville AW, Dickinson LM, et al. Collaborative central- ized reminder/recall notiﬁcation to increase immunization rates among young children: a comparative effectiveness trial.JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:365–373. 24.Greyson D, Vriesema-Magnuson C, Bettinger JA. Impact of school vaccination mandates on pediatric vaccination coverage: a system- atic review.CMAJ Open. 2019;7:E524. 25.Moss JL, Reiter PL, Truong YK, et al. School entry requirements and coverage of nontargeted adolescent vaccines.Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20161414. 26.Omer SB, Betsch C, Leask J. Mandate Vaccination With Care.Nature. 2019;571:469–472. 27.Newman PA, Logie CH, Lacombe-Duncan A, et al. Parents’ uptake of human papillomavirus vaccines for their children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019206. 28.Brewer NT, Hall ME, Malo TL, et al. Announcements versus con- versations to improve HPV vaccination coverage: a randomized trial.Pediatrics. 2017;139:e20161764. 29.Opel DJ, Heritage J, Taylor JA, et al. The architecture of provider- parent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits.Pediatrics. 2013;132:1037–1046. TAGGEDENDS16 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Item 13.G 01/11/21 11 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4163 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:38 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: ITEM 13G on January, 11 2022 agenda From: Steve Greenberg <radman@alumni.ucla.edu> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:13 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: ITEM 13G on January, 11 2022 agenda EXTERNAL Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers and Mr. White, I am writing to express my support for Item 13G on the agenda for the January 11, 2022 meeting, and to request that you strengthen it to reflect current science and to make the ordinance more effective. Although long overdue, this action will take steps toward limiting spread, maximizing uptake of boosters, and reducing stress on our health care system. While we cannot make up for the time, stress on health care workers, or lives lost due to strain on the health care system, it is a good step for us to do the right thing now. As a hospital‐based physician, I have seen first hand what happens when ambulances are lined up outside hospitals because the emergency room (and, in some cases, inpatient beds) are full and people cannot receive care. While the Omicron variant may well be milder for most people, the ease with which it is spread and the enormous number of cases is still increasing the number of people hospitalized. Elective surgeries ‐ including some cancer surgeries ‐are being canceled at various hospitals in the area. Lifesaving care is often delayed because paramedics are still waiting outside hospitals to drop off their patients. These patients who die may not have Covid‐19, but may instead die of other conditions that would have been treatable if beds were available and health care workers were not so stressed and exhausted. And even when patients were initially hospitalized for something else, the fact that they also have Covid‐19 complicates their recovery from other conditions and places enormous demands on health care staff and resources. We need to do better. As currently phrased, ITEM 13G may help, but it is written to require only two doses of vaccine which, as I'm sure you know, is not necessarily adequate against Omicron, although it is certainly better than having no vaccine requirement. I would urge the council to be ahead of the game this time, and use instead the CDC's definition of "up to date" vaccination (link below), which includes a booster for those eligible. Disney Hall is already requiring audiences to be boosted! https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ncov/vaccines/stay‐up‐to‐date.html Please also revise or remove the last line in your proposed regulation. As currently written, anyone who claims to have a religious objection to the vaccine could just freely come inside and spread the virus. Such a broad exemption is ripe for abuse. Please instead do what Culver City and Los Angeles are doing ‐ require those with religious exemptions to use outdoor sections of restaurants or take advantage of take out services. The virus doesn't care why someone isn't vaccinated. Allowing anyone to use this excuse to eat indoors will cause more spread. Item 13.G 01/11/21 12 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4164 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 In addition to being a physician, I am a foodie. I have long supported the restaurant industry in Santa Monica. While a few of my favorite restaurants have set an example by requiring vaccination, for the most part I have had to go outside of Santa Monica in order to safely eat at a restaurant. I have always been proud to live here. Lately, I am embarrassed and ashamed. Many cities around us ‐ Culver City. West Hollywood, Los Angeles, etc. ‐ took the responsible steps while we were still welcoming unvaccinated people to dine indoors. Nothing can change that, but we need to take the right steps now. Thank you. Stephen M. Greenberg MD Item 13.G 01/11/21 13 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4165 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Stop the vaccine passport now as it is unconstitutional! From: Liz Reyes <lrr816r@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:04 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Stop the vaccine passport now as it is unconstitutional! EXTERNAL Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Item 13.G 01/11/21 14 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4166 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport vote ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Genevieve Alexander <genalexander13@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:48 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport vote EXTERNAL Hello, I am writing to ask that you please do not implement a vaccine passport. We cannot live in a society where we are segregating people based on their vaccination status. It is unAmerican and not the standard we should set for our children. Thank you, Genevieve Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 15 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4167 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No v passports! Item 13G From: Viv <fixyourpet@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:02 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: No v passports! EXTERNAL Hi there! Please do not implement this as there are many peeps who can’t get or don’t want these shots injected into themselves and we should not discriminate and bar them from entry into businesses. Thanks, Viv Edmondson Santa Monica resident Item 13.G 01/11/21 16 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4168 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No passports . Attachments:showmezeepapers.png From: Eric Pelton <epelton818@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:46 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No passports . EXTERNAL what dirt do they have on you ? Whos behind this ? You know this is Illegal right off the bat . Violation of the US constitution and California state Constitution . https://california.public.law/codes/ca_civ_code_section_51.11 Item 13.G 01/11/21 17 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4169 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Item 13.G 01/11/21 18 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4170 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:06 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Say NO to Santa Monica Vaccine Passport From: Ellyn Weiss <lifestilesla@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:47 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Say NO to Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear City Council: This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. Item 13.G 01/11/21 19 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4171 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Sincerely, Ellyn Weiss Item 13.G 01/11/21 20 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4172 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Corona virus passport From: Zmoney3000 <mzaragoza10@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:18 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Corona virus passport EXTERNAL To impose any passports or mandates is beyond your job. Your job is to make the city of Santa Monica a better place for all. If you actually wanted to do your job you can start by fixing the homeless and gang problems stretching from santa Monica to Venice. It is also against this country's constitution for anything like that. In this country we value each person as a individual not as a collective group to put them in and mandate them. Do you job, your real job. Item 13.G 01/11/21 21 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4173 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: today at 5:30 pm From: Valerie L <mindheartnbody@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:30 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: today at 5:30 pm EXTERNAL Hello, I am writing to you because of the meeting on vaccine passports that will be held today at 5:30 pm. I do not support enacting a vaccine passport. I am a business owner who will not play a police officer and enforce this. We are all suffering financially. It will just push us all out of Santa Monica. Furthermore, this is an overreach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. It is a known fact that those who are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and spread the virus. This then will create a false sense of security. The policy will also create barriers for residents who are not vaccinated. I am for inclusion; this policy is discriminatory. In addition, it will create a diversion to the real needs of the residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. I hope you will take this into consideration as an elected official to make the best decision for the inclusion of all residents when you vote on this policy. Best, Valerie Item 13.G 01/11/21 22 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4174 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Louise Salomon <louisesalomon@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:33 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Oppose Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Government Overeach. Item 13.G 01/11/21 23 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4175 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Opposing Vaccine Passports in Santa Monica From: Nicole Dorfman <naturalmother@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:40 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Opposing Vaccine Passports in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to expresses the strongest opposition to the enactment of a vaccine verification for community access to public and private facilities in Santa Monica. The CDC acknowledges that none of the existing Covid-19 injections can prevent transmission or infection so what is the point of vaccine verification. This measure will create a system of legalized discrimination and place a tremendous burden on small businesses who will be forced to turn away healthy customers for no valid reason. My family will no longer visit Santa Monica for any reason should this measure pass. Please do the right thing and oppose vaccine verification in Santa Monica. Sincerely, Nicole Dorfman Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. Item 13.G 01/11/21 24 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4176 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:48 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORT!!! ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jennifer Goldman <jgoldman310@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:07 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORT!!! EXTERNAL I oppose enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a False sense of security. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. Jennifer Goldman Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 25 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4177 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:47 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: OPPOSING THE SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT From: Mary Donahue <mlhd87@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:14 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: OPPOSING THE SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT EXTERNAL I oppose the Santa Monica vaccine passports. This is so unconstitutional. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Item 13.G 01/11/21 26 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4178 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:47 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine passports From: Michelle Akda <mishakda@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:07 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine passports EXTERNAL To, the Santa Monica Council, I am writing to voice my vehement opposition to vaccines passports! This is unconstitutional, unethical and as we learn more about these vaccines absolutely INSANE! We, as Americans need, MUST be able to choose for ourselves what we want for our bodies! I do not want an experimental drug manufactured by convicted felons who have ZERO liability to be injected into my body!!! Please heed this email and DO NOT PASS VACCINE PASSPORTS!!! Concerned citizen, Michelle Akda ‐‐ MichelleWineFitness.com MichelleAkda.com Item 13.G 01/11/21 27 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4179 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:46 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: URGENT: Objection to Vaccine Passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Cole Cooper <colecooper.iam@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:21 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: URGENT: Objection to Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Dear Council Members, As a woman and mother living on Santa Monica, California, I strongly object to the implementation of this decisive and discriminatory policy. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica.. You were elected to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires men, women and children to demonstrate their private medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for those that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to real needs and concerns, such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. Item 13.G 01/11/21 28 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4180 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 The SM Vaccine Passport creates division and sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to men, women and children based on a medical procedure which the biologic comes in a box with an intentionally blank product insert and there is no informed consent. In closing, I would strongly encourage you to remember Nuremberg and vote no on this discriminatory policy. Item 13.G 01/11/21 29 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4181 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO COVID PASSPORTS!!! From: Pamela Van Ierland <pamela@vacationrentalmalibu.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:51 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO COVID PASSPORTS!!! EXTERNAL ‐‐ This is anti american and I do not support this! Pamela Van ierland Pamela Van Ierland Vacation Rental Malibu Pamela@vacationrentalmalibu.com 310‐487‐8799 www.vacationrentalmalibu.com Agent‐ Coldwell Banker Malibu West Office BRE License # 02013069 Item 13.G 01/11/21 30 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4182 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I Don't Support Vaccine Passport From: Mario Mijares <starseedsalsa@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:00 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: I Don't Support Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I do not support vaccine passports at all. People have a right to decide what they feel is right for their bodies despite what the news is saying. Item 13.G 01/11/21 31 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4183 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I oppose Vaccine Passports in Santa Monica From: Alejandra Rodriguez <alex.rodriguez27@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:41 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: I oppose Vaccine Passports in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Hello Santa Monica City Council, Happy New year and I hope you are all well. Please note the below as firm opposition to enacting vaccine passports in the city of Santa Monica for the good of its longtime residents as well as it's millions of visitors every year. Santa Monica has already been hit by so much with it's ever growing population of homeless people, waning tourism, vandalism, etc. Why are you going to put a further burden on SMPD and SM residents? It's been proven that vaccines neither prevent the contracting or transmission of COVID so why are you going to put up a further barrier to citizens obtaining goods and services and a further obstacle for SM businesses? Please consider blocking this initiative. We have seen that there is no correlation to people going in droves to get vaccinated once vaccine passports are required. Thank you for your time. A long time resident of Santa Monica, Alejandra Rodriguez Address: 3011 Virginia Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90404 Item 13.G 01/11/21 32 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4184 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Adam Campbell <gumball@gumballpro.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:32 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Having a vaccine passport is an over‐reach of government and a violation of our Constitutional rights. Even though I am not a Santa Monica resident, I am a California resident and highly oppose any vaccine passport as well as any Santa Monica Vaccine Passport. Adam Campbell Murrieta, CA. Item 13.G 01/11/21 33 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4185 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:54 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica From: Patricia Rabin <patriciarabin@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:07 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica EXTERNAL I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. Patricia Rabin MA. Item 13.G 01/11/21 34 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4186 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:53 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Proposed Vaccine Passports From: Golden State Lifeguards ‐ Chief Ed Castillo <ecastillo@goldenstatelifeguards.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:05 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Proposed Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL To whom it may concern, I am writing to say that I am opposed to any type of vaccine passport as it is discriminatory and divisive. As we all know, all information regarding the so called virus and subsequent variants is based on faulty and often times fabricated information. All you are doing is creating an even larger resistance movement (Firefighters4Freedom, LACountyFree, Lifeguards4Freedom and many more groups) and non-compliance will increase exponentially. If you are willing to sacrifice your political career, then go for it! Golden State Lifeguards Chief Ed Castillo, Lifeguard Operations 747-444-1035 (Office) 747-241-7803 (Mobile) E: ecastillo@goldenstatelifeguards.com W: www.goldenstatelifeguards.com (Please whitelist email to ensure delivery) 21123 ½ Costanso Street, Woodland Hills, CA Item 13.G 01/11/21 35 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4187 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Virus-free. www.avg.com Item 13.G 01/11/21 36 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4188 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:53 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: "Vaccine" Passports From: M J Kelly MD <mjkmd@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:37 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: "Vaccine" Passports EXTERNAL As a physician, with expertise in Epidemiology and Molecular Biology, I strongly condemn your initiative for “vaccine” passports for the following reasons:  First, the so called “vaccines” are not vaccines in the traditional sense of vaccination and are in fact, “genomic modification therapies.” You are trying to mandate Medical Treatment upon the public and this is a violation of the Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics.  The mRNA platform is a FAILURE. The UK just released data that at least 75% of Covid19 deaths in their December 2021 data banks were in the fully vaccinated.  The mRNA platform is DANGEROUS. There are over 21,000 DEATHS and OVER 948,000 Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) reported to the CDC’s VAERS website.  The mRNA inoculations DO NOT WORK to prevent acquiring or transmission and SARS Cov2 or any of its variants.  “Vaccine” passports do not acknowledge NATURAL IMMUNITY which is far more robust and long‐lasting than the mRNA inoculations.  This will hurt Santa Monica businesses because as in France, businesses forcing passports have been hurt and many driven out of business.  When this is all over and the fear porn has lost its bark, government officials such as you will be driven from power. I am aware of many patients and my medical colleagues who have been injured by this push for widespread mRNA inoculations. Your lack of awareness of this global, Big Pharma driven disaster is not an excuse and will be remembered by the victims (and their lawyers). Sincerely, Mark J. Kelly, M.D. Assistant Professor of Urological Oncology Item 13.G 01/11/21 37 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4189 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 St. John’s Health Center Item 13.G 01/11/21 38 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4190 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I oppose the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport From: Surfer Oftheweb <websirfer@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:49 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Jeramy Shirley <websirfer@sbcglobal.net> Subject: I oppose the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL To Whom It May Concern, This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. Item 13.G 01/11/21 39 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4191 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Jeramy Shirley Item 13.G 01/11/21 40 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4192 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:58 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Stop the vaccine passport mandate From: Biayna Matevosian <step_biayna@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:56 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Stop the vaccine passport mandate EXTERNAL Dear members of Council, I'd like to let you know that I do not support the vaccine passport mandates for the city of Santa Monica. I'm really hoping that you'll have the integrity to vote against this inhumane and unscientific mandates. Thank you in advance and God Bless America. Sincerely, Armine Ghazarian Item 13.G 01/11/21 41 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4193 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:55 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports are Nazi tactics - Are your values freedom or Naziism? From: jeff489 <jeff489@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:17 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passports are Nazi tactics ‐ Are your values freedom or Naziism? EXTERNAL To Santa Monica City Council: "Vaccine passports" can be thought of as "Nazi passports." Adolph Hitler and the German Nazis tried the same thing in Germany 1937. They declared a public health crisis due to communicable diseases and issues "Health Passports," depriving targeted people of their basic civil rights. In fact, Auschwitz death camp was originally established in 1940, not for the purpose of being a death camp, but for the purposes of being a quarantine facility. This can be verified at the Holocaust Museum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp Anyone who collaborates in taking the U.S. government down the road to Naziism and fascism is an enemy of freedom and an enemy of the Bill of Rights. There will be a Nuremberg 2.0 to try all those who commit crimes against humanity during the Great Panic of 2022. Jeff S. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. Item 13.G 01/11/21 42 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4194 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:54 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Passport From: Jennifer Sherman <jps213@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:27 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Passport EXTERNAL Good day. This email is in alignment with voting NO on a vaccine passport for the city. We need to move FORWARD with our lives, not backwards and I humby ask you help us all do that. Thank you. Regards, Jennifer Sherman Item 13.G 01/11/21 43 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4195 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Robyn dunbar <radyousa@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:53 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:New item, 1/7/2022 Vaccine proof indoors Comment EXTERNAL I am completely opposed to the city introducing vaccine requirements for indoors and everything in the new proposed recommended item 1/7/2022. This is a unconstitutional gross display of government overreach and a threat to the citizens of Santa Monica’s basic human rights. I am not Republican or Democrat, this is a human rights issue, I do not comply. ‐Robyn Adrian Dunbar Long time Santa Monica citizen. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad Item 13.G 01/11/21 44 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4196 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: What is in the "vaccine" PATENTS: NANODISCS, NANOMAGNETS, SINGLE WALLED CARBON NANOTUBUELES Graphene Oxide, NANOSPHERES, QUANTEM DOT, IOT SOCIALISM PLTFORM From: Annie Beck <annie.beck.harbour@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:15 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: What is in the "vaccine" PATENTS: NANODISCS, NANOMAGNETS, SINGLE WALLED CARBON NANOTUBUELES Graphene Oxide, NANOSPHERES, QUANTEM DOT, IOT SOCIALISM PLTFORM EXTERNAL Links to sample mRNA and COVID-19 vaccine patents: 248 page Moderna patent for the WHO Covid-19 Vaccines: https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/US10703789.pdf Nanodiscs: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/25/ce/6d/84cb16adb713b2/US20100216804A1.pdf Nanomagnets: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d1/d5/03/2cb5028a1e528c/US20120265001A1.pdf Single-walled carbon nanotubeles (SWNCTs) Graphene oxide: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/9e/bc/82/52d2a8e8c97ac2/US20130251618A1.pdf Nanospheres: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fe/a6/eb/8f54ba8800d73b/US20120201859A1.pdf QuantumDot: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e6/9d/c3/787a071bfff162/US20120228565A1.pdf IOT/SocialismPlatform: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/e6/9d/c3/787a071bfff162/US20120228565A1.pdf Item 13.G 01/11/21 45 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4197 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport From: lbr9349 <lbr9349@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 9:16 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Hello, I am writing to urge you to vote AGAINST the Santa Monica vaccine passport. ‐ This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. ‐ The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a False sense of security. ‐ it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the purpose to slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. ‐ these vaccine passports have been implemented in LA County and LA City and the numbers are worse than ever before proving that they passports do not work against CoVid. ‐ this will lead to protests, hardships on businesses and their employees, and active turmoil within the city ‐ businesses will lose patrons and income further putting a burden on the city, tax payer dollars, and the future of our economy ‐ these passports are nothing less than an attempt to discriminate and segregate. The makers of this “vaccine” even admit that they offer little to no protection (see recent interview with Pfizer’s CEO regarding boosters and a “new” vaccine to come). Enforcing a faulty medical treatment currently Item 13.G 01/11/21 46 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4198 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 under Emergency Use Authorization and still in clinical trial violates our civil liberties and international law. I urge you to do what is right for the citizens of Santa Monica and all of the neighboring areas and tourists. ‐‐ Laura Reid Item 13.G 01/11/21 47 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4199 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:00 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO on Vax passport From: Kristin Nugent <kristinidla@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:54 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO on Vax passport EXTERNAL Hello, I am writing today to ask that you vote NO Item 13.G 01/11/21 48 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4200 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Thank you, Kristin Nugent Item 13.G 01/11/21 49 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4201 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:59 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No to Vaccine Passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Leslie Colgin <leslie@number4design.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:57 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No to Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Hello, We live in Topanga and frequently come to Santa Monica for shopping, doctor visits, dining, etc. Both my husband and three teenage children are frequent visitors. We oppose vaccine passports and think it is an over reach of government to segregate the community based on who is vaccinated and who is not. The CDC has confirmed that the vaccines do not prevent transmission of COVID‐19 and therefore vaccine passports are ineffective in slowing this virus. The one thing passports WILL certainly do, however, is convince us to not frequent establishments in Santa Monica and instead head to Calabasas where such passports are not in place. Respectfully, Leslie Colgin Topanga Item 13.G 01/11/21 50 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4202 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:58 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No to Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: A. Pero <pero@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:54 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No to Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear Council, The vaccine passport is basically an illegal action as it requires checking one's medical records which are private. Anyone can be sued for demanding private medical records they are not privy to. The vaccine passport creates a false sense of security as even vaccinated people are getting virus. This is discrimination and it will create undue stress on restaurants and slow business as the businesses will have to provide additional outdoor seating and prevent people from using restaurants in inclement weather. Sincerely, Alice Pero Item 13.G 01/11/21 51 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4203 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 8 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:58 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council Agenda Item 13.G From: Ryan Hinds <ryan.r.hinds@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 10:55 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 13.G EXTERNAL To Whom It May Concern: I would like to write in opposition to Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 13.G, which would require proof of vaccination in many Santa Monica businesses. Though I am vaccinated, I disagree with treating those who are not vaccinated as second-class citizens. My grandparents lived in Nazi Germany and were treated as second class citizens because they were Jewish. Jews were not a threat to other Germans no more than the unvaccinated are a threat to the vaccinated or the boostered, given that all three groups are capable of transmitting the virus. Not to mention that vaccine passports would create a real headache for people who legitimately cannot take the vaccine for medical or religious reasons. They would be forced to take a PCR test regularly, possibly at their expense, just to perform basic activities like getting a hair cut or going to the gym. I do not see anywhere where the City of Santa Monica is prepared to provide free of charge testing, not to mention that tests have been in short supply recently. This is discrimination, plain and simple, with no scientific basis. Finally, there is no sunset clause on the proposed ordinance for when COVID-19 becomes endemic like the flu. Are we going to expect the vaccine passport program to continue indefinitely when COVID-19 is no longer deemed a threat to public health? For these reasons, I urge the Santa Monica City Council to vote NO on Agenda Item 13.G. Ryan Hinds ryan.r.hinds@gmail.com (805) 796-9528 Item 13.G 01/11/21 52 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4204 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine passports From: Andrea Fonseka <andymariez69@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:55 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine passports EXTERNAL Dear Councilmembers, As a resident of this great city, I implore you to allow anyone who visits our city to have the freedom and liberty to partake of all its amenities and services with complete and utter freedom,, regardless of whether or not they have received the COVID-19 shot(s). To date, we have seen that these shots prevent serious illness from this virus, but they neither prevent contagion nor do they prevent the contraction of this virus. Latest and numerous studies have shown the effectiveness of increased intake of vitamin D3 (up to 3000iu per day) as being much more beneficial in building immunity to all coronaviruses and a healthy diet far more effective in controlling serious illness-link below. These shots should remain as a personal choice and allow for varying hesitation to get these ineffective shots due to other medical conditions or health choices that do not align with these as yet unproven shots. Many people have already caught this virus and have built up a robust natural immunity. Please, let Santa Monica remain one of the bastions of freedom in our State and vote NO to vaccine passports in order to participate in life-a God given right. Vitamin D3 for COVID and good health: Bret Weinstein | DarkHorse Podcast: Vitamin D for Covid, What’s the Catch? - DarkHorse Podcast Gruff Davies and Linda Benskin on Apple Podcasts Bret Weinstein | DarkHorse Podcast: Vitamin D for Covid, What’s the Cat... Item 13.G 01/11/21 53 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4205 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Show Bret Weinstein | DarkHorse Podcast, Ep Vitamin D for Covid, What’s the Catch? - DarkHorse Podcast Gruff Da... Vitamin D and COVID 19: The Evidence for Prevention and Treatment of Coronavirus (SARS CoV 2) Vitamin D and COVID 19: The Evidence for Prevention and Treatment of Cor... Please do not let BIG Pharma rule our lives. Stand up for the people of this city and say, "No, not on my watch" Kind regards, Andrea Fonseka Item 13.G 01/11/21 54 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4206 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport...DON'T DO IT From: Robert Ceroke <robert.ceroke@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:00 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport...DON'T DO IT EXTERNAL This is a disgusting Nazi-esqe means of controlling and demeaning vaccine-free citizens and absolutley should not be required! The "vaccines" are a fraud that don't even work and subject the person to significant danger. Just look at the VAERS reports...20k dead, 30k permanently disabled and 1M significantly injured from the vaccine...and these numbers are grossly underreported! DO NOT PASS A VACCINE MANDATE!!! Robert Ceroke 310-721-7880 Item 13.G 01/11/21 55 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4207 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine passport! From: bgping1@aol.com <bgping1@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:26 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Brenda Ping <bgping1@aol.com> Subject: No Vaccine passport! EXTERNAL Dear Council Members I recently read of your efforts to require vaccine passports in Santa Monica. This confuses me because we already know: * it is illegal to force people to submit to experimental “vaccines” *the current “vaccines” do not prevent infection nor death *the current “vaccines” do not prevent transmission of Covid‐19. So I keep asking myself why you would do this? Are you getting money from the vaccine companies? This will come out at your next election. Are you getting extra from Governor Newsome ‐ a man bent on making California a communist/totalitarian state? Or are you just enjoying what seems like limitless power right now? And why would you pass this before the results of the Supreme Court ruling? You’re trying to beat their ruling so you won’t be stopped? How will that look in the next election? Please rethink your options and your motives. We know now none of this is for our health ‐ it is a move to a totalitarian state where we are your “slaves “. Thank you Brenda Ping Los Angeles Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS Item 13.G 01/11/21 56 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4208 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:01 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Against Vaccine Passport proposal on January 11th From: Eleana Burroughs <eleanaburroughs@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:20 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Against Vaccine Passport proposal on January 11th EXTERNAL Please do not approve vaccine passport requirements for Santa Monica tomorrow. switched the many various reasons is this is dividing our society, hurting businesses, and causing damage that is far more destructive than this “virus and/or its variants” and apparently it isn’t even effective as getting “vaccinated” only protects the vaccinated which has now shifted to “get vaccinated to protect others & the community.” Everyone can catch it, everyone can spread it, and all this government interference hasn’t done anything to stop it’s spread realistically except control the narrative everywhere we go. Let’s let the doctors go back to treating patients, privately. This has become a politically charged agenda and since their game plan isn’t working, please don’t support it. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. https://www.perk‐group.com/urgent‐action‐la Item 13.G 01/11/21 57 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4209 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:03 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Against Covid mandates From: Cora Hermoso <cora.hermoso@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:41 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Against Covid mandates EXTERNAL Dear Council and Mr David White: This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPAA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPAA. Item 13.G 01/11/21 58 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4210 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Please hear our voices! Thank you Cora Hermoso Item 13.G 01/11/21 59 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4211 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:02 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Do not force people to undergo risk of covid vaccination ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: michael brajkovich <mikebrajkovich@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:12 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Do not force people to undergo risk of covid vaccination EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica Council Members, Given what we know now about the covid mRNA vaccines particularly that although with previous/earlier variants they lessened the severity of alpha and delta symptoms, per statements from Dr. Fauci and CDC director Walensky, covid vaccines cannot prevent the infection nor transmission of covid. This is especially true now with the omicron variant which recognizes neither previous vaccination nor infection of previous variants. This fact coupled with the rare though known serious adverse vaccine reactions including cardiac arrest, blood clotting, permanent disability and death, must give us serious and thoughtful pause to expecting people to be vaccinated or further boosted. Please, do not enforce a vaccine passport onto Santa Monica. Sincerely, Michael Brajkovich Item 13.G 01/11/21 60 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4212 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:02 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please No Passport From: SatBir Kaur <softestbear@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 11:15 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please No Passport EXTERNAL City Council, I have been a resident of Santa Monica for nearly 15 years, and love it. I am writing to voice my opinion that I do not support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. I believe in free choice for everyone and would not want to live in a city that segregates or discriminates any portion of the population. Aside from my ongoing cancer treatment which at the advice of my Dr.'s has prevented me from getting any additional shots, I have many friends who chose not to get it. I fully support that choice. Nothing is one size fits all, especially medicine. Please take into consideration the chronically ill people that this is supposed to protect will be left out of society, some for the last month of their lives. I beg you to vote against this passport. Kind regards, Satbir Kaur 310‐927‐3525 Item 13.G 01/11/21 61 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4213 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:02 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica From: missy g <moneygirl@mendo420.org> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:48 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica EXTERNAL I am a graduate of UCLA and a longtime Santa Monica resident. I am shocked that you would continue with blatant misuse of power. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. Furthermore, the SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Item 13.G 01/11/21 62 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4214 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Some questions for you: 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? If so, this diverts the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. DO NOT CONTINUE WITH THIS VACCINE PASSPORT INSANITY! Item 13.G 01/11/21 63 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4215 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:02 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Amy Rippee <ameliakuliaken@aol.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:37 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I vehemently oppose your nazi‐esque attempt of enacting a vaccine passport in Santa Monica. It not only shows your ignorance on the facts pertaining to Covid‐19 but also the facts regarding American citizen’s constitutional rights! You are setting yourselves up for legal action against you. This violates HIPPA laws and Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to name only a few. American citizens, regardless of their medical condition or religious, moral or ethical beliefs, have the right to move freely in society, in businesses, events, restaurants, theaters, etc. without being discriminated against nor harassed nor coerced nor marginalized. Whatever happened to my body, my choice!? This virus is no worse than any other seasonal flu. We now know that more than 99.8 percent of all people groups that get Covid, fully recover. Also only 3% of all deaths with Covid, died from Covid. The rest died from other terminal illnesses with Covid. You ignore the fact that people who get the Covid shot are not immune against Covid nor the variants, can still get very sick AND can transmit it to others. And you ignore the benefits of natural immunity, which is the best defense toward herd immunity and the healthiest option. Stop the nasty political bullying. You are clearly abusing power. You will not get away with this. The Constitution is on our side. We will take you to court. Very sincerely, Amy Rippee Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 64 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4216 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:32 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Refuse From: Michael B <latincubla@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:20 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Refuse EXTERNAL No vaccine passport. Item 13.G 01/11/21 65 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4217 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:31 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports From: Kathy Ornstein <kathyannornstein@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:16 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Hello I am not in favor of you passing the bill of vaccine passports. Please do not do so. Kathy A Ornstein (310) 657‐5174 Item 13.G 01/11/21 66 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4218 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:31 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports From: Kathy Ornstein <kathyannornstein@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:17 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL This is for the City of Santa Monica. Say no to Vaccine Passports On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 11:15 AM Kathy Ornstein <kathyannornstein@gmail.com> wrote: Hello I am not in favor of you passing the bill of vaccine passports. Please do not do so. Kathy A Ornstein (310) 657‐5174 Item 13.G 01/11/21 67 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4219 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:04 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO to Vaccine Passport in S.M. From: Robert Butler <rbutler8888@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:21 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO to Vaccine Passport in S.M. EXTERNAL NO to a discriminatory, segregationist, paranoia‐based, over‐reaching, unconstitutional Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. If passed, I will personally boycott the City of Santa Monica, taking my consumer dollars elsewhere, and encourage everyone I know to, as well. Thank you, Robert Butler Item 13.G 01/11/21 68 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4220 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:03 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: vaccine passports From: Peggy Harris <hharrispeggy@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:29 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: vaccine passports EXTERNAL I do not support vaccine passports. Peggy Harris Item 13.G 01/11/21 69 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4221 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:35 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine mandates ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Maggi Havas <maggihavas@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:52 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine mandates EXTERNAL I oppose this. Sent from Maggi's iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 70 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4222 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:35 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport From: Guillermina Rios <grios178@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:32 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I oppose your proposal for a vaccine passport. It is on over reach of your position and and a violation of our constitutional rights. Item 13.G 01/11/21 71 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4223 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:33 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: SM-V Passport. From: James Hopson <inspiring4health@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:07 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: SM‐V Passport. EXTERNAL Good day City Counsel This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. There is no good science that suggests this is a good course of action to require V-passports. If you are doing this because it will save lives then please wake up and get real data. If you are doing this because you will get money from the federal government then shame on you. That is not in service of the people. It has been shown that the vaccines lose effectiveness after 120 days and does not stop the new variants. To keep pushing this issue it appears is not for reasons of public health. Item 13.G 01/11/21 72 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4224 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Do the right thing... vote NO on V-passports for Santa Moncia. James Hopson 310 773 2323 Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. Item 13.G 01/11/21 73 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4225 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:33 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: DO NOT support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica From: Amanda Miller <amandamiller5173@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:13 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: DO NOT support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Hello, My name is Amanda and I am a local RN living and working in Santa Monica. Enacting a vaccine passport in Santa Monica is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. Hi This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a viol ation of HIPA. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Thank you. Sincerely, Amanda ‐‐ Amanda C. Miller Item 13.G 01/11/21 74 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4226 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 University of Maryland Master of Science - Clinical Nurse Leader The Pennsylvania State University Bachelor of Science - Environmental Resource Management Marine Sciences Item 13.G 01/11/21 75 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4227 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:32 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Do not support vaccine passport system From: Erica Stanojevic <ericast@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 8:09 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Do not support vaccine passport system EXTERNAL Hello, My name is Erica Stanojevic and I request that you please do not support a vaccine passport system; the idea exemplifies discrimination. When I was only 29 years old, more than 10 years ago, I had a mini‐stroke at a time when doctors gave me straight A's for my health. At this time I am fully vibrant, as I use earth based foods and medicines for my health. The current vaccines all have significant risk of blood clots and I am not willing to risk having another stroke. A passport system that denies my ability to make choices for my own body is atrocious. The whole thing is especially obscene as it is very clear that the vaccines don't work. As an observation, before the holocaust Jewish people were labeled as dirty and disease‐filled; then they were slowly excluded from society. This is a well‐worn path of history; people have been committing these atrocities in various forms in various societies. Please don't support a passport system that marches along paths with unseen ends. Blessings, Erica Item 13.G 01/11/21 76 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4228 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 8 Vernice Hankins From:Karen Wise <kwise2@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:32 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Support for Vaccine Mandate - January 11, 2022 Agenda Item 13G EXTERNAL Council Members: Thank you for considering a vaccine mandate as described in Agenda Item 13G. It’s well past time to do this. We Santa Monicans should be able to go to our local businesses confident that they are as safe as is possible. Also, our city workers should be protected from having to work in physical proximity to unvaccinated persons, especially for things that take more than a few minutes. I support an indoor vaccine mandate. Further, I request the permanent extension of online options for as many city services as possible, even when it becomes safe to reopen the in person options for city services. These online options make things so much easier for residents. Many thanks ‐Karen Wise, Santa Monica resident and voter Karen Wise kwise2@gmail.com Item 13.G 01/11/21 77 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4229 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: (No Subject)Vaccine Passports From: michcasale <michcasale@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:36 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: (No Subject)Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Good Morning, It is my understanding that you are meeting today to discuss requiring vaccine passports in Santa Monica. Vaccine passports will not stop the spread of covid as many covid vaccinated and boosted people are contracting covid and spreading it to others. Vaccine passports violate the rights of citizens and are unconstitutional. I urge you to vote against requiring vaccine passports. Thank you, Michele Casale, United States Citizen Sent from ProtonMail for iOS Item 13.G 01/11/21 78 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4230 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote NO on Vaccine mandates and/or Passports From: Alyssa G <aganezer@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:32 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vote NO on Vaccine mandates and/or Passports EXTERNAL Dear City Council and City Manager, There is no logical or medical reason to institute a vaccine passport/mandate for public places, especially at this time. Any impetus to do so displays an ignorance of the facts. 1. Covid vaccines do not supply protection against transmission of Covid‐19. This is an established medical fact, publicized by Rochelle Walensky of the CDC and Barbara Ferrer of LACDPH. Therefore, there is no public health rationale to exclude unvaccinated people, as they are no more dangerous than the vaccinated. 2. The Omicron variant, now 85% of sequenced samples (and probably soon to be 100%) is mild. Of the 200,000 cases over the past 7 days, only about 1500 cases required hospitalization (45% of the number in the county press releases, as described by Barbara Ferrer regarding people in the hospital with Covid versus because of Covid), and about 100 deaths DURING THOSE 7 DAYS total. The emergency is over. To institute a vaccine mandate at this time is nonsensical and will create justified public distrust in their elected and appointed officials. Alyssa Ganezer Santa Monica Item 13.G 01/11/21 79 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4231 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kristin Glover <kristinglover@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:40 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Kristin Glover <kristinglover@att.net> Subject: Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear Mr White and Council Members, I am writing to urge you not to enforce the draconian measure of a vaccine passport. First of all, and most importantly, it is becoming commonly known that those who’ve been vaccinated can not only contract the disease but also can spread it!!! Therefore mandating the vaccine doesn’t make scientific sense!! It makes no sense at all!! There’s also the issue of coercion to take a medical procedure ‐ especially an experimental one ‐ which is forbidden by law. It’s forbidden by the United States Constitution and by the Nuremberg Code. Are these laws you really want to violate?? Such an ill conceived effort will surely not only ruin many businesses in Santa Monica but will very likely bring lawsuits hailing down on the City of Santa Monica. Further. since the definition of “fully vaxxed” seems to change constantly, will the citizens of Santa Monica have to get more shots and then more and more to keep their vaccine passports “valid”??? Please don’t fall for this completely false sense of security. It is not the right solution. With Deep Concern Kristin Glover Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 80 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4232 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose Vaccine Passport! ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jasmine Dhanda <jasi.d@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:40 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Oppose Vaccine Passport! EXTERNAL Dear Mr White and SM Council members, I am writing to you as a SM resident that our household strongly objects to the unconstitutional and discriminatory proposal that you are proposing. The Vax passport is an offensive and divisive tool that does nothing to stop the spread of covid! This proposal is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. I strongly oppose this proposal! This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. We already have horrendous crime and lack of action. Do your jobs and stop overreaching! Item 13.G 01/11/21 81 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4233 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. I will not allow my medical freedom to be violated and will join and legal action against the council to prevent violation of our civil and medical freedoms. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Please note by objections and those of my household and do your elected job! Jasmine dhanda Ocean Avenue Santa Monica Item 13.G 01/11/21 82 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4234 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:36 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica From: FS <fs@franzystaedter.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:43 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica EXTERNAL To Whom it may concern; As a former Los Angeles resident and a Fan of Santa Monica, I do not support the Vaccine Passport proposal for Santa Monica. Santa Monica is a hub for tourism and a Los Angeles County landmark and with a vaccine passport mandate, you will limit people from visiting and destroy local businesses. Vaccines do not prevent the spread of Covid, you know this. If a person likes to receive the vaccine, then it’s a personal choice for their health and survival. If a person decides against taking the vaccine, then it’s a personal choice for their health and survival. If you really think longterm and in favor of the survival of your community with health and safety in mind, you will not mandate a covid vaccine passport. Vaccines are a personal choice. Sincerely, Franzy Staedter Item 13.G 01/11/21 83 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4235 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:39 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports From: Westley <westley333@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:02 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL My family and I are strongly against this. It violates so many personal ethical, moral and legal issues. This is AMERICA! Do not cage us in and control us like animals. There is so much proof of the damage that vaccines cause to many people. How can you go forward in this direction that will exclude so many wonderful people from goods and services in Santa Monica? This is wrong on so many levels. ~~~ W. Westley Item 13.G 01/11/21 84 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4236 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:37 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I DO NOT support a vaccine mandate in Santa Monica ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Amanda Blakley <amanda.blakley@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:23 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: I DO NOT support a vaccine mandate in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Amanda Blakley Tourist • Writer • Adventurer m: 747.249.7620 i. @amandablakley t: @amanda_blakley w: https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.amandablakley.co__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!57Fupk0iHp09jtmsp8jUXSGzqKRU 0eddVB7fUBX4tAQx4wkfD5o9Rzf7t4aPIrM$ Item 13.G 01/11/21 85 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4237 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:37 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Pasports From: joyrburn <joyrburn@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:31 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Pasports EXTERNAL Hello Santa Monica City Council, Regarding the vote today on inoculation medical passports: coercive mandates of shoddily tested medical products and segregationist passports violates international human rights laws. Moreover, viruses do not adhere to these mandates, lockdowns, masking or any other man-made measure. Scientist in Antarctica, all fully inoculated, have succumb to the illness. Section 8.2 of Pfizer and Moderna’s reports to the FDA for their emergence-use authorization request states under UNKNOWN data that their is no evidence that the inoculations stop transmission or infection. DOD’s AI data combing of over 5.6 million Medicare patients revealed over 60% of hospitalizations occurred with the fully inoculated. These medicines have NOT been approved. Continuity is not available on the united States. As a registered democrat, I fully stand by My Body My Choice. With plenty of treatments, with a 99% survival rate, with the virus becoming more transmissible and less virulent, which is what occurs as the disease becomes endemic, and with many virologists and health officials stating Omicron will end the pandemic, any law segregating those who can not, should not or will not due to high health risks associated with the inoculation such as heart inflammation, neurological issues, etc., is purely punitive, coercive, socially unjust, discriminatory, medically unethical, and as stated above, illegal. Wasting tax payer’s money, hurting livelihoods, and destroying children’s education is what a yes vote will bring to Santa Monica along with a false sense of security. This is not about health. More and more people are waking up to this fact, especially those with three jabs and still getting infected. These drugs are failing all over the world. Please don’t promote pharma over true health which involves more than a virus. It involves social health, the health of the economy, the health of the individual to be responsible for their own health, other health issues that are not being address such as mental illness and suicides.We have had 2 years to expand our health systems and we did nothing We are penalizing society because one sector of the economy, health care, is broken. Instead of fixing it, we are firing nurses and doctors and then blaming them for their logic and upstanding that the shot is not solving the situation. The “one problem, one solution” is myopic and defies the art of medicine. Stand for all of Los Angeles, Joy Burnworth-Weiner https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download DOD powerpoint-don’t shoot the messenger, Natural News, as Humetrix took down this information that I had bookmarked. https://www.naturalnews.com/files/Salus_Humetrix_VE_study_2021_09_28.pdf https://www.who.int/bulletin/online_first/BLT.20.265892.pdf https://www.pandata.org Item 13.G 01/11/21 86 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4238 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 https://adc.bmj.com/content/105/7/618 https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/11/26/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-lets-be-cautious-and- first-see-the-full-data/ Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. Item 13.G 01/11/21 87 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4239 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: PLEASE Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:39:16 AM From: stevebbqman@aol.com <stevebbqman@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:07 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: PLEASE EXTERNAL PLEASE vote NO on the vaccine passport. PLEASE vote no on all restrictive measures. It is unfair, unconstitutional and just plain un-American. PLEASE follow the true science by allowing exceptions for scientifically proven "natural immunity". PLEASE allow for medical and religious exemptions. These things matter. We must be fair and reasonable. One day, the rules will change in a way you do not feel will benefit you or your family, you will want someone to do the right thing. I am asking you as a neighbor and friend, please do the right thing. This is no time for politics. Your vote will be remembered at the next election. Dare to stand out and vote NO. Thank You- A lifelong Californian that loves personal choice, personal responsibility and most of all freedom... Item 13.G 01/11/21 88 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4240 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine mandates in Santa Monica Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:39:23 AM From: Chris Lefevre <lafever22@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:43 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine mandates in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council, Please do not enact vaccines mandates in our city. First of all, the medical evidence is irrefutable. It is time that we all recognize that vaccines do not stop the spread. You need nothing more than a standard online search to verify this. We are all getting this new variant and this pandemic is now becoming endemic like it is the flu. Second of all, the pandemic has already destroyed our businesses, with countless family-owned operations shutting down, and Santa Monica having been rated among top 3 worse cities for small business to be in during the pandemic. Have you had a look at the Promenade lately? Main Street? Have you had a look at the fast dropping numbers of enrollments in our schools? Forcing people to do something has NEVER served anyone for their own good. Please have a look at your history books and consider choosing the right side of history. You will be remembered for this decision for years to come. Sincerely, Chris Lefevre Santa Monica resident, taxpayer, home-owner, with 4 children born and raised here Item 13.G 01/11/21 89 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4241 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:41 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Disapproval of mandate ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Elaine Stephanyan <stephanyan.elaine@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:31 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Disapproval of mandate EXTERNAL Dear city council members of Santa Monica, I strongly disapprove of the vaccine passport to be passed in the city of Santa Monica and in general the greater of all of Los Angeles, CA. This is a violation of not only people’s constitutional rights but it is inadequate on a scientific standpoint too. What are we trying to prevent here? Because those who are fully and not vaccinated at all , collectively transit the virus and handle it either mild or moderately. This will also hurt businesses and create a divide among the community. Sincerely Elaine Stephanyan Item 13.G 01/11/21 90 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4242 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:41 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Agenda item- vaccine passport From: Shevi Baruch <shevi30@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:40 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Agenda item‐ vaccine passport EXTERNAL Hi, I am not in support of the vaccine passport in Santa Monica. Please as a city resident, and a business owner I do not support this unconstitutional idea! And ask you as the people I voted for the city council to vote NO on that! Shevi Baruch Committed to your well being, Shevi Baruch , GYROKINESIS® Master Trainer Item 13.G 01/11/21 91 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4243 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:40 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine mandate From: jasrx1 <jasrx1@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:40 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine mandate EXTERNAL This mandate is ill advised and misguided. Since the vaccines don't stop transmission, there is no reason to impose it on struggling business. Definite overreach. Please reconsider. Thankyou for your service. Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Device Item 13.G 01/11/21 92 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4244 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:40 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I don't support vaccinne passport. From: robertmaduro45747 <robertmaduro45747@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:46 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: I don't support vaccinne passport. EXTERNAL Sent from my Galaxy Item 13.G 01/11/21 93 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4245 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:40 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: OPPOSE the Vaccine Passport and Vaccine Mandates From: Brenda Matea <bmatea@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 6:50 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: OPPOSE the Vaccine Passport and Vaccine Mandates EXTERNAL I OPPOSE the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport. I request of Councilmember Brock, Mayor Himmelrich, and Councilmember Parra that the City of Santa Monica NOT IMPLEMENT by executive order or return with an emergency ordinance to require that employees and all persons entering certain indoor facilities be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. As a citizen of Los Angeles, and California I am asking you to vote AGAINST any form of vaccine mandates and passports that require citizens to show proof COVID vaccination to enter indoor spaces or to work. These mandates trample upon businesses and citizens, and is a dangerous path forward that removes the rights and freedoms of all American citizens. Citizens should live freely and should be allowed to choose concerning their health. We deserve to make our own health choices and not have government overreach. We deserve to live privately and not be mandated to share our health information creating segregation of citizens. As a teacher for LAUSD, now isolated at home because of my choice, I remind you, we deserve the opportunity to work publicly and not be isolated because of our choices. A vaccine passport is directly connected to segregation of classes and loss of freedoms and is the precursor to everything I hold dear as a free citizen. Please, allow citizens a choice and DO NOT mandate vaccines and vaccine passports. Thank you. Brenda Matea LA County/California Citizen LAUSD Teacher Item 13.G 01/11/21 94 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4246 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Urgent: Vote Against a Vaccine Passport !!! Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:39:05 AM From: Mischelle Mikulas <mmische@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:49 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Urgent: Vote Against a Vaccine Passport !!! EXTERNAL Dear City Council, I urge you to take a Stand For Freedom. Please do not vote for a vaccine passport. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation Item 13.G 01/11/21 95 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4247 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. I urge you to vote against a vaccine passport. Sincerely, Mischelle Mikulas “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” - President Reagan Item 13.G 01/11/21 96 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4248 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth. There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy. Item 13.G 01/11/21 97 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4249 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:42 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: OPPOSE Vaccine Passport From: Fu Fu <alfufu@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:43 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: OPPOSE Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council members: I strongly oppose the proposal for a vaccine passport in Santa Monica or anywhere in the United States of America. It is un‐American and is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information as well as a violation of our Constitutional rights! This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of SM as it violates various federal laws and puts the City of SM in a position to be sued. You were elected to be good stewards of our public dollars. With this policy, the City of SM will also lose many tourists (and thus $$) as no free American would want to visit a city with such misguided and authoritarian policies. Besides violating our Constitutional rights and federal regulations (code 21, section 20.23 and 24 states that it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion), this discriminatory policy does not follow science. It will not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus, thus creating a false sense of security. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. The vaccine mandates and passports make no logical scientific sense and does not belong here in the U.S.A. Thank you, Angela Chu Item 13.G 01/11/21 98 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4250 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:42 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: URGENT!! Vote No on Vaccine Passport - Must Read Information Before You Vote From: J Petzold <jpetzold300@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:40 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: URGENT!! Vote No on Vaccine Passport ‐ Must Read Information Before You Vote EXTERNAL Dear Council Members Today I received a notification that the City of Santa Monica’s intends to institute a vaccine passport for all persons desiring to access certain facilities in Santa Monica. This is an extremely dangerous and overreaching attempt of a few elected officials to cast a wide, unprecedented and unconstitutional net of oppression on its constituents and businesses in an alleged attempt to stop the spread of Covid-19, for which there are many cures, but those cures have been suppressed by the powers that be, yet they are available for anyone who does any cursory research. This move of the Santa Monica City Council would openly discriminate against those who are vaccine free and to grant privileges to those who are vaccinated. Here is a standard cure for Covid 19: 200 mg HydroxyChloroquine 2x daily 500 mg Azithromycin 1x daily 220 mg Zinc Sufate 1x daily By a New York doctor – I’m your Huckleberry@ RossFairchild He cured 350 patients without hospitalization. This and many cures have been suppressed, as you probably know. Here’s a quote from an article entitled “The Covid-19 Genocide of 2020” by Claire Edwards. Covid-19 was long pre-planned in documents and simulation exercises emanating from the eugenicist Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation. A platform with 200 detailed levels is provided by the World Economic Forum led by Klaus Schwab, a technocrat and promoter of trans-humanism, in order to provide detailed instructions on how the “COVID-19” pandemic is to be used to implement a global monetary reset and digital currency, technocracy and totalitarian government worldwide under the guise of socialism and environmentalism, with China as the model, and enslave humanity through a sinister vaccine conspiracy. Item 13.G 01/11/21 99 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4251 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Here’s a quote from a 1981 book by Bilderberger Jacques Attalli that reveals the mindset behind the creation of Covid plandemic. “The future will be about finding a way to reduce the population. Of course, we will not be able to execute people or build camps. We get rid of them by making them believe it is for their own good…. We will find or cause something, a pandemic targeting certain people, a real economic crisis or not, a virus affecting the old or the elderly, it doesn’t matter, the weak and the fearful will succumb to it. The stupid will believe in it and ask to be treated. We will have taken care of having panned the treatment, a treatment that will be the solution. The selection of idiots will therefore be done by itself; they will go to the slaughterhouse alone” Research also Patent No. 10,130,701 for the Corona Virus. Patent No. 7897744 & 8506968 for SARS, Patent No. 5676977 for Aids, and more. The SM vaccine passport will not slow down the transmission of the Covid-19 virus. Rather it is a sweeping move for power grab by the Globalists and its agents at the local level. It is anti-American, anti-human, and most of all contrary to our God-given sovereign right to have control of what we put in our bodies and freedom from medical tyranny. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. They are more likely to transmit the variant because of the Spike Proteins in their bodies. Further the mRNa is a code injected into the body to attack the body’s immune system. The vaccination is a crime against humanity and all those involved in pushing this deadly bioweapon will be tried for this crime, sooner or later. Very sad is the pushing of the vaccine on our babies. You all are part of this crime if you vote for the vaccine passport. As you know thousands and thousands of people have died worldwide from the vaccine. The vaccine passport would be a step backwards in our country and will take us down the slippery slope of fascism. Do you want to be a part of that sell out? You were elected to make Santa Monica prosper and thereby enhance the quality of life of your constituents. You are not supposed to stick a wedge and create divide and kill businesses and trample on our freedoms. If you have another interest that you serve, then there is a conflict of interest and those of you with that conflict must recuse yourselves and/or step down now or face being sued personally as an individual as well as a council member, for breach of your fiduciary duty and other causes of action. You were elected to be good stewards and support prosperity and business opportunities in Santa Monica. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies and unconstitutional mandates. The vaccine passport would require residents to reveal their medical records in order to get access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA and against our sovereign right to protect our bodies from invasive therapies, and our Constitution. Item 13.G 01/11/21 100 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4252 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. PLEASE VOTE DOWN THE VACCINE PASSPORT.. Thank you. Item 13.G 01/11/21 101 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4253 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:41 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passport From: Margarita M <maliagros@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:56 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Please do not segregate our society and enrich the pharmaceutical industry to demand any amount of boosters they want for a fast‐tracked experimental products which under normal circumstances would have undergone a decade‐long process involving safety and data. We are not that kind of society where people should not have choice and pharmaceutical industries can have free reign on what is injected into people's bodies with ZERO liability. IT is absurd and lacks scientific common sense. You would be giving too much power to the pharmaceutical giants. NO MORE MANDATES Margarita This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by email and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication. Thank you. Item 13.G 01/11/21 102 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4254 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:41 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I do not support vaccine passport in santa monica California ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Barbara <bstoyanoff@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:23 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: I do not support vaccine passport in santa monica California EXTERNAL Thank you Tax paying citizen Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 103 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4255 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Karen Blechman <kblech@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:54 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:City Council meeting January 11th 2022. Agenda item 13G EXTERNAL Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, With the rapid spread of the relatively mild but highly contagious Omicron variant locally and around the world, we see that the existing vaccines do not prevent infection even in the fully vaccinated. Insisting that everyone must be vaccinated when it does not prevent the spread of Covid-19 is unscientific. For some employees of local businesses, a mandate would present the cruel choice of either accepting a vaccine that could harm them (as for example in the case of individuals with autoimmune disorders) or losing their employment. With Omicron having supplanted earlier variants, there is no clear benefit and considerable risk in mandating vaccination for employees and patrons of local businesses. The horse has already left the barn. Shutting the stable door now would be futile. Please do not enact an unnecessary and potentially harmful mandate. Respectfully, Karen Blechman Item 13.G 01/11/21 104 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4256 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:50 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. From: Carolin Bakhani <carolin@kacrl.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:33 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. EXTERNAL We don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. I have refugeed to US for democracy and freedom. This is wrong on so many levels. This actions are far far away from democracy. Please think how this is going to hurt business in Santa Monica more than it is. Thank you Item 13.G 01/11/21 105 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4257 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Dennis <drkinnane@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:13 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine passports EXTERNAL Ladies and Gentlemen: It has come to my attention that certain members of your city council are proposing a vaccine passport be instigated in the city of Santa Monica! Not only is this discriminatory but it violates multiple National and international laws which give the citizens of the United States the right to choose whether to participate in an experimental Medical procedure or not! Indeed this so‐called vaccine has not been approved officially and is still in clinical trials which makes it completely experimental! It is only approved under the “emergency use authorization” and it is still in third stage clinical trials which makes it experimental! Meanwhile, According to the VAERS reporting system at the CDC this experimental vaccine has killed tens of thousands of Americans and very likely 5 to 10 times that number since reporting of adverse events has been discouraged for this product! This so‐called vaccine is actually a gene modification medication which has killed hundreds of thousands of people worldwide at this stage and injured way over 1 million ! Dr. Robert Malone the inventor of these MRN a vaccine products has now renounced their use As dangerousas dangerous and unnecessary! As political leaders, and under California law you are not exempt from being held personally liable for this coercion of individuals into receiving this dangerous and ineffective vaccine and under title VII of the civil rights act of 1964 you may not discriminate against people for their choice not to be vaccinated! I can promise you as a doctor and medical provider for over 52 years that there can and will be lawsuits initiated against you personally if you choose to pursue this criminal and irresponsible act against your fellow citizens! You need to wake up now and explore why thousands and thousands of doctors and nurses have refused this dangerous medical experiment and back off while you can from this ill‐advised and illegal action. Very Sincerely Dr Dennis G Kinnane OMD LAc RPh Long Beach California Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 106 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4258 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: My stance on 13-G vaccine passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Sacha Naschinski <sachaski86@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:02 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: My stance on 13‐G vaccine passport EXTERNAL My name is Sacha Naschinski. I’m against vaccine passport to go into businesses. It does nothing, but discriminate and segregate vaccinated and unvaccinated. Vaccine passport is very divisiveness and this has become politicized. This is the reason why I’m not in favor of it Sacha naschinski Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 107 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4259 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:49 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No on vaccine passports From: Anne <anneandstar@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:03 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No on vaccine passports EXTERNAL Vaccine passports are unconstitutional! The shots do not stop the spread of the virus, they only stop the severity of the virus at best, so are not technically a vaccine. Many people cannot take the vaccine for specific health or religious reasons as well. I am totally against the vaccine passports! I used to shop in Santa Monica a lot but have been avoiding Santa Monica for a year now due to it's strict Covid rules. Anne Kirkpatrick Marina Del Rey Item 13.G 01/11/21 108 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4260 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) I support Item 13G. Mandates work. Patricia Hoffman Item 13.G 01/11/21 109 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4261 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:51 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport mandates ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Jonathan Jones <jonathan@fluidmovefitness.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:44 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport mandates EXTERNAL To the Santa Monica City Council, David White I have lived in Southern California my whole life with the exception of 4 years in Northern California for work and college. The idea of segregation in my city (LA) due to vaccine mandates is disgusting and goes against everything California stands for, which is freedom to choose. There is absolutely no peer reviewed studies to date that show clearly that what is being called a covid 19 vaccine prevents the spread of the virus and/or reduces hospitalization or death. If there is would you please send it to me, as I review studies daily and to date there are none. Having said this, it is ANTI scientific to mandate experimental drugs without informed consent and in fact is unconstitutional, as well as violates the Nuremberg code which we as a country fought a war in which one of the positive outcomes of that war was the Nuremberg Code. I could go on and on with facts to support that these experimental drugs do not work and in fact are illegal to force upon citizens in turn for living freely, but I will not at this time. Instead I will leave you with this, myself, my friends, my family and and anyone that comes into town from outside the LA area to visit me will not come to Santa Monica to spend money again, if indeed you implement vaccine mandates. I am adamantly opposed for so many reasons to vaccine mandates, please do not impose this illegal, unconstitutional mandates on citizens of your city. Thank You Jonathan Jones Item 13.G 01/11/21 110 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4262 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:40 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: vaccine passports From: Britt Lind <britt@peopleforreason.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:10 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: vaccine passports EXTERNAL Dear Council Members: Coercing people to get vaccinated is against federal code 21, section 500.23 and 24. Forcing people to show their medical records is a violation of HIPA. The discrimination you plan to legitimize goes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Voting for vaccine passports makes you liable for legal action. I certainly hope that you do not decide to take this ill advised step. Britt Lind ‐‐‐ Britt Lind President ‐ People for Reason in Science and Medicine brittlind.com 425‐760‐8902 https://pro.imdb.com/name/nm0511169?ref_=hm_nv_usr_prof peopleforreason.org facebook.com/gotoprism Twitter ‐ @gotoprism Instagram ‐ @gotoprism Item 13.G 01/11/21 111 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4263 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:40 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please do not vote for Santa Monica vax passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: David Mackenzie <dhmackenzie@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:14 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please do not vote for Santa Monica vax passport EXTERNAL Dear Council, Please may I ask you to not vote for mandating anything more in relation to Covid ‐ including the vaccine passports you are voting about tonight. Mandatory health measures go against the notion of informed consent which is enshrined into medicine. They go against all notions of personal responsibility. They are un‐American in every way. They are proving across the world to ineffective at preventing Covid spread. Omicron spread is almost unstoppable as we have seen in the last few weeks. But South Africa and now the U.K. have seen cases drop quickly and hospitalisations down significantly which is a good indicator that things will go this way here too. Omicron may be the best way to achieve the level of immunity to finally stop this virus. Vaccine Passports will be irrelevant, expensive, bureaucratic and discriminatory. Like all Covid mandates they will be subject to legal challenge and may ultimately prove embarrassing to those that impose them. Please do not vote for them. Regards, David Mackenzie, Santa Monica Resident Item 13.G 01/11/21 112 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4264 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:40 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: From: DONNA PEARMAN <pearmandonna49@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:16 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL Please vote no on the vaccine passport.Covid can still transmit through the vaccinated.It won't work.Your resturaunts will close down due to not e tough people.Ours in san Fernando Valley are almost empty.Its not right to have people have to take the Covid test.You have to know three days before you go to eat.It separates families.It doesn't transit the virus there.In the mean time people crowd on buses.No social distance. Item 13.G 01/11/21 113 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4265 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:39 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO to proof of vax requirements From: Ashley <ashleypremiere@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:23 PM Subject: NO to proof of vax requirements EXTERNAL This email is to firmly oppose the instigation of "proof of vax" in order to enter certain indoor establishments. There is simply no validity to it at all. People are getting sicker than ever, thanks to the bio weapon injections which provide no immunity to anything. We elected you folks to be good stewards of our public dollars and policy, but instead you are following mainstream media opinion which has an agenda, and is plain wrong. Your woke policy would remove choice from the equation, whether or not to get the covid injection; we are grown adults. I think we can make our own mind whether we deem a certain "vax" should be taken or not. And the argument is valid: 'if it's such an effective "vaccine" and you take it, why do you care who else takes it?'. It's insanity to force this on people, and we the people will not stand for it. There is an obesity epidemic that needs to be addressed, and it isn't because of the erroneous covid narrative. Case numbers are completely meaningless https://roundtablereport.com/?p=6582 [video with PCR Inventor Dr Kary Mullis, Nobel Prize Winner]. Please wake up you guys and stop going along with the New World Order rubbish. I hope you are not being incentivized for this, because that's illegal also. It's called coercion here too. It's never too late to do the right thing and let people make their own minds up.... most people in hospital right now are the fools who have taken this infection injection. Warm regards, Ashley J. - Ashley Jeffery Email: ashleypremiere@gmail.com Item 13.G 01/11/21 114 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4266 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 “If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change” - Wayne Dyer Item 13.G 01/11/21 115 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4267 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:39 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Item 13G-Vaccine Mandate From: Steph Stalker <stephstalker@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:28 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Item 13G‐Vaccine Mandate EXTERNAL Hi, I'm a Santa Monica Resident and homeowner. I have two children who go to SM public elementary school and wanted to write to you to express my support for a citywide vaccine mandate for indoor dining and venues. Both myself and my husband work in the sciences and we are both strong supporters of the vaccine. We have seen the data and understand that vaccines work to minimize transmission of this deadly virus. Both of our children have also received the vaccine on the very first day that CVS opened it up to them. We are very concerned that Santa Monica whose residents are overwhelmingly vaccinated, seems to have taken a laissez faire approach to vaccine mandates. This loose approach has allowed unvax people in neighboring Los Angeles and tourists to the area to enter our dining and establishments and bring in COVID with them. As we know, despite full vaccination and booster shots, the Omicron variant is able to evade this and spread to others who are not able to protect themselves. At any moment our Teacher's Union could decide to close schools given a severe enough outbreak. My family has done our part in getting vaccinated and boosted, so now it's the city's turn to do its part to further help prevent the spread. The vaccines are available to all and the city has made available multiple opportunities and locations for which to obtain it but that is evidently not enough for some, so unfortunately this measure must be taken. Secondly, this mandate needs to apply to all who are able to get vaccinated (ages 5 and up). It is unclear to me why the age of 18 was decided. Anyone aged 5 and up can (and needs to) get this vaccine. I have multiple friends in this city with children under the age of 5 who are not yet eligible, so while we wait for them, it is critical we minimize as much spread as possible. We are counting on you as our representatives to please do the right thing to keep my kids in school and keep our vulnerable community safe. Thank you for your time, Stephanie Stalker Item 13.G 01/11/21 116 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4268 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please do no enact vax passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Bella <bellap10@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:03 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please do no enact vax passport EXTERNAL I was shocked to learn that several members of the Santa Monica City Council (Brock, Himmelrich and Parra) that I voted for are proposing a vaccine passport on Jan. 11th, 2022 to start on February 8, 2022. This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. I’m emailing to the City Council and let them know that I oppose a Santa Monica Vaccine Passport. I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport. Please respect the laws and our God given freedom. Santa Monica resident since 2004. Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 117 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4269 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please do no enact vax passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Vilma Zenelaj <vzenelaj@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:04 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please do no enact vax passport EXTERNAL I was shocked to learn that several members of the Santa Monica City Council (Brock, Himmelrich and Parra) that I voted for are proposing a vaccine passport on Jan. 11th, 2022 to start on February 8, 2022. This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. I’m emailing to the City Council and let them know that I oppose a Santa Monica Vaccine Passport. I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport. Please respect the laws and our God given freedom. Santa Monica resident since 2004. Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 118 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4270 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:jzhawk13 <jzhawk13@protonmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:59 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:There are hundreds of opposing emails... EXTERNAL There are hundreds and hundreds of opposing emails that people sent to council@smgov.net Which is on your website. Pull this agenda item G13. This is criminal what is going on. Sent from ProtonMail mobile Item 13.G 01/11/21 119 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4271 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:52 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please do no enact vax passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Vilma Zenelaj <vilmazenelaj@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:04 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please do no enact vax passport EXTERNAL I was shocked to learn that several members of the Santa Monica City Council (Brock, Himmelrich and Parra) that I voted for are proposing a vaccine passport on Jan. 11th, 2022 to start on February 8, 2022. This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. I’m emailing to the City Council and let them know that I oppose a Santa Monica Vaccine Passport. I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport. Please respect the laws and our God given freedom. Santa Monica resident since 2004. Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 120 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4272 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:51 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please do no enact vax passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Real Houses <realhouses@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 12:04 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please do no enact vax passport EXTERNAL I was shocked to learn that several members of the Santa Monica City Council (Brock, Himmelrich and Parra) that I voted for are proposing a vaccine passport on Jan. 11th, 2022 to start on February 8, 2022. This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. I’m emailing to the City Council and let them know that I oppose a Santa Monica Vaccine Passport. I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport. Please respect the laws and our God given freedom. Santa Monica resident since 2004. Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 121 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4273 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Covid mandate From: Maurice Maxwell <lmmaxwells3@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:53 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Covid mandate EXTERNAL This is extremely terrible....Communism at it best. We're is my Freedom of Choice? My City has become People Public of Santa Monica! Just like Russia, China and North Korea. And you think you're trying to save Lives. And People are still getting sick after getting shot one, shot two and Now the Booster. Please Stop this one sided view stuff!! It's just not Working!!! Straight from a Native of Santa Monica, who roots runs as far back as 1890! My Ancestors are turning in there Graves!!! Item 13.G 01/11/21 122 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4274 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passports From: johnny bao <johnnybao@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:54 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Santa Monica City Council, I am a Santa Monica tax payer writing to voice my opinion against vaccine passports in Santa Monica. I am a published scientist and have been reviewing research papers for months. My reasons may be summarized as follows: 1. Vaccine passports are a significant violation of health privacy. 2. Vaccine passports form the infrastructure to support a vaccine apartheid that pays no attention to natural immunity that is noted in the literature to be as much as 27 times more potent than vaccine conferred immunity. Further, natural immunity is far more durable (typically lasting decades rather than a handful of months). 3.The existing vaccines have no possible long term studies. With each passing week, we hear more about the failings of the vaccine (need for boosters, more side effects, diminishing efficacy against new variants). Further, the manufacturers have yet to disclose their actual short term trial data. They continue to fight against the release of the data. This should be cause for alarm to anyone. I can provide journal research support for every point raised here (and many more). I am more than glad to discuss further. Make no mistake... the science does not support vaccine passports. Sincerely johnny bao Item 13.G 01/11/21 123 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4275 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO on Vaccine Passport From: Andrew Thompson <athompson@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:53 AM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO on Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Hello, The new variants of this virus are becoming less and less harmful to our country. And with the incredible rise in cases, it is very apparent that the vaccine is not effectively stopping this variant of the virus. There are other issues that you need to be addressing while the past two years have been focused on stopping a virus. Finally, please stop dividing our country. Allow people to make a choice on injecting a vaccine into their bodies that has been rushed to market. Especially one that is seemingly not working. There are millions of smart, loving, kind and compassionate Americans that are choosing not to get a vaccine. Stop making us feel like we don’t belong in our own neighborhoods. Thank you, Andy Item 13.G 01/11/21 124 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4276 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: please vote NO on Santa Monica Vaccine Passport From: Melissa Smith <elysian00@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:57 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: please vote NO on Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council, Please vote no on the proposed vaccine passport for Santa Monica. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated, in effect creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Please honor your oath as public servants and work to protect the freedoms of your constituents. There have been numerous adverse side effects from the vaccine. Where there is risk, there must be choice. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Item 13.G 01/11/21 125 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4277 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Melissa Smith Item 13.G 01/11/21 126 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4278 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Item 13.G 01/11/21 127 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4279 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: ITEM 13 G- Vaccine Passports Attachments:SM 1.jpg From: Paola Coria <paolacoria@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 11:52 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: ITEM 13 G‐ Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL I will begin by sharing my deep disappointment with the ignorance of City of Santa Monica Board Members. PLEASE read up on the US Constitution and the Nuremberg laws that SUPERSEDE "mandates". Please have a CONSCIOUS and STOP these ILLEGAL mandates! and STOP KILLING SMALL BUSINESSES!! For starters, all covid shots are STILL UNDER EUA! NONE have been approved‐ therefore, they are STILL AN EXPERIMENT! In case you haven't heard...these shots DO NOT STOP ANY SPREAD of anything! The viral load is the same in a vaccinated vs non‐vaccinated person. Why FORCE people to take an INEFFECTIVE EXPERIMENTAL drug to dine in restaurants??? Think about it!‐ Vaccine passports make NO SENSE! and cause DISCRIMINATION on one's medical status and KILLS SMALL BUSINESSES! Please know that a recent study showed vaccinated people infected others at a rate of 25%, while the unvaccinated did it at a rate of 25%‐ not much difference. In addition, why do you continue to close your eyes with Natural Immunity? As with Polio and chicken pox‐ once you had it you DID NOT NEED A VACCINE! So now should these people be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST for not taking this INEFFECTIVE EXPERIMENTAL drug??? You are mandating a vaccine with a mortality rate 174 times higher than the virus, yet you have the nerve to say you want the well‐being of the community?? What happened to COMMON SENSE?? PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING! masks, testing, covid shot should be OPTIONAL! Ask Orange County how business is booming over there because they have some sort of common sense left! ‐ This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. Item 13.G 01/11/21 128 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4280 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 - This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. PAOLA CORIA Item 13.G 01/11/21 129 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4281 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No on Vaccine Passports From: Christina Lindsey Orta <clorta@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:26 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No on Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Please do not support vaccine passports. This is a violation of our USA Constitution, segregates people by medical class and discriminated against groups of people without recognizing natural immunity, religious freedoms or the fact that no FDA approved version of the vaccine is actually available in the USA (Pfizer’s FDA approved version isn’t actually distributed in United States). The last time in history a card had to be used to go certain places and businesses, was Nazi Germany. Please vote NO on this! Christina clorta@hotmail.com Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 130 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4282 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Opposition to the proposed Vaccine Mandate ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: John Siscel <johnsiscel04@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:09 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Opposition to the proposed Vaccine Mandate EXTERNAL To Whom It May Concern I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Covid‐19 Vaccine Mandate that is currently before the Santa Monica. This potential mandate, however well‐intentioned it may be, is not something that will be effective or beneficial to the Santa Monica community or the area at large. There are many reasons why this mandate is a very bad idea such as: Santa Monica already has a very high vaccination rate (over 80%) among its residents (source: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News‐2021/August‐ 2021/08_02_2021_Santa_Monica_Vaccination_Rate_Tops_80_Percent.html__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!9HsKhvc6H0wma6 rR84HKBtSNvYhsIy8bzTqKuhfNrmYRmGU2gbfQpWJjft1Q50k$ ) The CDC Director has recently stated that being fully vaccinated does not prevent getting or spreading the disease. (source: https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.msn.com/en‐us/health/medical/cdc‐director‐covid‐vaccines‐cant‐prevent‐ transmission‐anymore/ar‐ AASDndg__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!9HsKhvc6H0wma6rR84HKBtSNvYhsIy8bzTqKuhfNrmYRmGU2gbfQpWJj2cPPGc0$ ) We are already under a mask mandate and we know that mask wearing works and is effective and stopping the spread. Any vaccine mandate will only strengthen the resolve of those who are refusing or hesitant to get the vaccine and will play into the hands of the conspiracy theory crowd. A vaccine mandate will hurt our small businesses, as it will prevent those who opt out of vaccination to spend their dollars in our community, as well prevent tourists from other areas of the country from patronizing our businesses. Any city mandated vaccine requirement will force these small and medium businesses to enforce the policy which puts those individuals in a law enforcement capacity, which they are not trained for, nor did they sign up for it. Item 13.G 01/11/21 131 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4283 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 And lastly, and most importantly to me, vaccine mandates, like it or not, create two seperate classes of people. As a result, individuals will be denied access to various goods and services because of this. And that is wrong, no matter what the motivation behind the policy is. I ask the council to do the right thing and vote down this mandate. I thank you for your time and consideration. Best, John Siscel Item 13.G 01/11/21 132 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4284 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Comments on proposed vaccine mandate From: Eric Allen <ericjallen@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:11 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Comments on proposed vaccine mandate EXTERNAL To Santa Monica City Council members I am a registered voter in the city of Santa Monica wishing to offer commentary on the proposed city vaccine mandate being debated tonight as covered in today's issue of the Santa Monica daily press. First, I feel it would be somewhat useful to give you a little background on myself. I'm an academic researcher currently on faculty at UC‐Riverside and before that at the University of Southern California. I obtained my PhD from the University of California, Berkeley and have an extensive background in empirical research, statistical analysis, and interpreting academic research. Based on the proposed mandate in the aforementioned news story I have the following reservations about its adoption. I'll only list them briefly here, but I'm happy to expand if you'd like more detail. I also want to make clear that these points represent my best understanding of the current (and evolving) academic data, and I share them on my own behalf, and not on that of my employer or any other parties. 1) While still preliminary, the current academic evidence indicates that reduction in transmission provided by being vaccinated is significantly worse than for prior variants. If anything, the developing consensus reinforces the point that the main benefit of vaccination is to minimize the negative effects of Covid for the infected person, not significantly reduce community transmission. 2) While the number of positive cases are increasing (partially due to increased testing), the rate of hospitalization and death isn't anywhere near the same rate. Indeed based on the most recent data from the LA county health system, the overall number of patients has stayed relatively flat. This is most likely due to a combination of vaccination, and omnicron being less severe. 3) The proposed mandate is significantly beyond current CDC guidelines. In sum, I don't believe the current cost‐benefit analysis is in favor of a change to current policies, particularly given that the justification is based on the claim it will reduce transmission significantly. In addition, given the high rates of vaccination in Santa Monica and surrounding communities, as well as current hospitalization trends, the current environment doesn't justify the imposition of a broad set of rules that will impose costs on businesses and their consumers (vaccinated or not). Finally, on a practical level (and this is the most opinion based , the imposition of these policies have been continually ad hoc and unclear over the course of the pandemic. I don't question that many of them were justified, but to assume that a new regulation is going to make things easier for businesses already fighting with multiple layers of uncertainty and compliance seems very unlikely given recent history. Item 13.G 01/11/21 133 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4285 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Thanks for your consideration. Eric Allen, PhD Item 13.G 01/11/21 134 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4286 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I strongly oppose the enacting of Vaccine-passports in Santa Monica! From: Linda "Elinda" Frithiof <lindafrithiof@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:12 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: I strongly oppose the enacting of Vaccine‐passports in Santa Monica! EXTERNAL I strongly oppose the enacting of Vaccine‐passports in Santa Monica! 1. Vaccines do not stop the transmission of the virus (obviously, if you look around and check the numbers in SM right now) so the only incentive that is left is to stop people from ending up in the ICU. Evidence show that the Omicron is not sending people to the ICU in the same extent as the Delta did. Keep in mind that people end up in the ICU for many reasons and the Corona virus is just one of them. If we want to save lives there are more effective ways where the money is better spent. 2. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. The people of Santa Monica elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. Looking at other countries we can see that the Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus. Instead it creates a false sense of security that could be dangerous to the people who are immunocompromised. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise to slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. Best regards, Linda Frithiof Rebound Sound Co. Los Angeles www.reboundsound.la lindafrithiof@gmail.com +1 (310) 461‐9135 USA Item 13.G 01/11/21 135 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4287 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:30 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport From: Nicole Sessions <nictress@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:15 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I am writing in oppostiion of the proposed vaccine passport. Why would you implement a passport when vaccinated people can contract and transmit COVID. This policy is unsound, discriminatory and will hurt businesses. Thank you, Nicole Sessions "The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart." -The Buddha Nicole Sessions, CD(DONA) http://www.nicolesessions.com IG: @TheSweetYogini Yoga *Herbalist * Doula * Hypnobirthing® Practitioner * Breath * Sound * Poetry Item 13.G 01/11/21 136 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4288 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 8 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:29 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: We vigorously oppose vaccine mandates in Santa Monica!!! From: Marcus Portis <bruinfirefighter@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:21 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: We vigorously oppose vaccine mandates in Santa Monica!!! EXTERNAL I am an LAFD firefighter who lives in the city of LA. Me and so many others frequent the businesses in the iconic city of Santa Monica! VAX PASSPORTS DO NOT WORK!! Our most recent LAFD firefighter recruit academy was recently shutdown due to a covid outbreak. Every recruit, including the staff was fully VACCINATED!! Please wake up. The only thing you will spread with these passports is a detrimental (possibly fatal) economic virus that cripples local business. Please honor your duty to serve and protect our God‐given freedoms and liberties. We oppose and object to vaccine passports for Santa Monica!!! God is watching. Sincerely and Morally, M. Portis Item 13.G 01/11/21 137 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4289 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 9 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:29 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Not in Support From: alexandra lambrakis <alambrakis@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:21 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Not in Support EXTERNAL As a resident of Los Angeles, I in no way support the vaccine passport for Santa Monica City which is in violation of all kinds of federal laws and allows for the takeover of Santa Monica by lawlessness and agendas that in no way favor the health of the city or its residents. At this juncture in this pandemic there is no defendable reason to be implementing such a plan given that these leaky vaccines have leveled the playing ground with this virus which infects and transmits regardless of this status. Please do not succumb to forces of greed and falsehood and misdirection. We count on your good judgment and good conscience. Thank you for your service. Item 13.G 01/11/21 138 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4290 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 10 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:29 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: We strongly object to vaccine passports in Santa Monica!!! From: makkis blakkis <makkismusic@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:23 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: We strongly object to vaccine passports in Santa Monica!!! EXTERNAL I am an LAFD firefighter who lives in the city of LA. Me and so many others frequent the businesses in the iconic city of Santa Monica! VAX PASSPORTS DO NOT WORK!! Our most recent LAFD firefighter recruit academy was recently shutdown due to a covid outbreak. Every recruit, including the staff was fully VACCINATED!! Please wake up. The only thing you will spread with these passports is a detrimental (possibly fatal) economic virus that cripples local business. Please honor your duty to serve and protect our God‐given freedoms and liberties. We oppose and object to vaccine passports for Santa Monica!!! God is watching. Sincerely and Morally, M. Portis Item 13.G 01/11/21 139 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4291 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:34 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORT From: Shelley Cerny <shelley@shinyhappyneedles.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:05 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORT EXTERNAL Period. I do not consent. I'm a healthcare professional. I treat Santa Monica residents every week. This "vaccine" is not tested, it is not a traditional vaccine, it is experimental, the vaccine that has been FDA approved (Comirnaty) is not available and is not what people are being given, it has now harmed and killed more people than Covid, I treat more vaccine injuries than Covid cases. Gates and Fauci have come out and said the vaccine does not work as expected. This is not ok. I do not consent. Shelley Cerny LAc 1137 2nd St. Suite 119 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Item 13.G 01/11/21 140 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4292 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. From: D <daniellevoiceovers@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:06 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. EXTERNAL I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. Danielle Ezra 4874 South Centinela avenue Los Angeles California 90066 Item 13.G 01/11/21 141 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4293 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: ITEM 13G on January, 11 2022 agenda From: Steve Greenberg <radman@alumni.ucla.edu> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:13 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Santa Monica City Manager's Office <manager.mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: ITEM 13G on January, 11 2022 agenda EXTERNAL Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers and Mr. White, I am writing to express my support for Item 13G on the agenda for the January 11, 2022 meeting, and to request that you strengthen it to reflect current science and to make the ordinance more effective. Although long overdue, this action will take steps toward limiting spread, maximizing uptake of boosters, and reducing stress on our health care system. While we cannot make up for the time, stress on health care workers, or lives lost due to strain on the health care system, it is a good step for us to do the right thing now. As a hospital‐based physician, I have seen first hand what happens when ambulances are lined up outside hospitals because the emergency room (and, in some cases, inpatient beds) are full and people cannot receive care. While the Omicron variant may well be milder for most people, the ease with which it is spread and the enormous number of cases is still increasing the number of people hospitalized. Elective surgeries ‐ including some cancer surgeries ‐are being canceled at various hospitals in the area. Lifesaving care is often delayed because paramedics are still waiting outside hospitals to drop off their patients. These patients who die may not have Covid‐19, but may instead die of other conditions that would have been treatable if beds were available and health care workers were not so stressed and exhausted. And even when patients were initially hospitalized for something else, the fact that they also have Covid‐19 complicates their recovery from other conditions and places enormous demands on health care staff and resources. We need to do better. As currently phrased, ITEM 13G may help, but it is written to require only two doses of vaccine which, as I'm sure you know, is not necessarily adequate against Omicron, although it is certainly better than having no vaccine requirement. I would urge the council to be ahead of the game this time, and use instead the CDC's definition of "up to date" vaccination (link below), which includes a booster for those eligible. Disney Hall is already requiring audiences to be boosted! https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019‐ncov/vaccines/stay‐up‐to‐date.html Please also revise or remove the last line in your proposed regulation. As currently written, anyone who claims to have a religious objection to the vaccine could just freely come inside and spread the virus. Such a broad exemption is ripe for abuse. Please instead do what Culver City and Los Angeles are doing ‐ require those with religious exemptions to use outdoor sections of restaurants or take advantage of take out services. The virus doesn't care why someone isn't vaccinated. Allowing anyone to use this excuse to eat indoors will cause more spread. Item 13.G 01/11/21 142 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4294 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 In addition to being a physician, I am a foodie. I have long supported the restaurant industry in Santa Monica. While a few of my favorite restaurants have set an example by requiring vaccination, for the most part I have had to go outside of Santa Monica in order to safely eat at a restaurant. I have always been proud to live here. Lately, I am embarrassed and ashamed. Many cities around us ‐ Culver City. West Hollywood, Los Angeles, etc. ‐ took the responsible steps while we were still welcoming unvaccinated people to dine indoors. Nothing can change that, but we need to take the right steps now. Thank you. Stephen M. Greenberg MD Item 13.G 01/11/21 143 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4295 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports From: Al Benoit <albenme@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:06 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Dear Council, Please do not introduce this idea. First of all, our current vaccines for Covid‐19 do not warrant it, since they do little to nothing to prevent infection or transmission. Second, these products are very dangerous compared to typical vaccines. Visit openvaers.com to see that proof. Third, creating a passport as such amounts to coercion to receive a medical intervention which is against the Nuremburg Codes and US law which follows it in principle. Do you later want to be implicated in crimes against humanity? If you don't, then leave this alone. Sincerely, Alfred Benoit Item 13.G 01/11/21 144 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4296 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: oppose vaccination passport From: Ilana Taylor <ilanatay@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:15 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: oppose vaccination passport EXTERNAL I oppose implementing any vaccine passport This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a False sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. there are plenty people that are immune to sickness and have antibodies and have no need for vaccination at all and this is preposterous to demand such things to only create death I know plenty of people that I’ve gotten the vaccination and have had adverse reactions and death. This is a form of discrimination and unconstitutional Sincerely US Citizen Ilana Tay Item 13.G 01/11/21 145 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4297 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:33 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please vote against the vaccine passport for Santa Monica! It's not good for any of us! From: Dorsey Larus Roe <dorseyroe@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:19 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please vote against the vaccine passport for Santa Monica! It's not good for any of us! EXTERNAL Hello Council Members, Please vote 'no'. Forcing people to get a vaccine that may or may not be appropriate for them just so they can participate in daily life is not a good idea. None of us know the effects of repeated vaccinations and the Omicron variant is much milder. Many people have it right now and their symptoms are very similar to a cold, the emergency rooms in Santa Monica are not full! Please vote against the vaccine passport--it is not a good idea for us in Santa Monica. Thank you! Dorsey Roe Item 13.G 01/11/21 146 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4298 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 8 Vernice Hankins From:Gene Oppenheim <geneopp@earthlink.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:32 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Item 13G EXTERNAL I want to let you know that I strongly support a mask mandate as described in item 13G. This will help reduce the spread of the COVID Virus and help prevent disease, hospitalizations, and deaths. Thank you, Gene Oppenheim, MD MPH Item 13.G 01/11/21 147 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4299 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vax Passport From: maran17 <maran17@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:44 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vax Passport EXTERNAL Dear council, I Do Not Support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. This goes against All of our natural rights, our constitution and our free will. It is Unlawful & Unjust. Santa Monica cannot turn in to 1939 Germany! Thank you Jim White Item 13.G 01/11/21 148 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4300 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport From: sxf225 <sxf225@protonmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:48 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear city council, I am writing to let you know that I do not support the implementation of the vaccine passport as it is a violation of the constitutional right to liberty. Best, SF Item 13.G 01/11/21 149 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4301 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:34 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No! From: Carmit Bachar <foxxc@mac.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:54 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No! EXTERNAL I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. Carmit Bachar Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 150 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4302 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:34 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I do not support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica From: Juanita Lucero <yogaandbalance@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:55 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: I do not support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica EXTERNAL This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Item 13.G 01/11/21 151 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4303 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Thank you. Item 13.G 01/11/21 152 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4304 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:34 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Concerned citizen, voicing my OPPOSITION to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. From: Tiffany Hume <luminous333@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 10:00 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Concerned citizen, voicing my OPPOSITION to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. EXTERNAL To Whom it May Concern; I am writing to you as a concerned citizen. I am voicing my OPPOSITION to enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, ~Tiffany Item 13.G 01/11/21 153 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4305 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE PFIZER INOCULATIONS FOR COVID-19 MORE HARM THAN GOOD CONTACT US INFO@CANADIANCOVIDCAREALLIANCE.ORG WWW.CANADIANCOVIDCAREALLIANCE.ORG Item 13.G 01/11/21 154 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4306 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WHO WE ARE Our alliance of over 500 independent Canadian doctors, scientists, and health care practitioners is committed to providing quality, balanced, evidence-based information to the Canadian public about COVID-19 so that hospitalizations can be reduced, lives saved, and our country safely restored to normal as quickly as possible. Item 13.G 01/11/21 155 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4307 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WE SUPPORT The doctor/patient relationship and personalized care Informed consent and treatment options Free and open scientific discourse Safe & effective vaccines Item 13.G 01/11/21 156 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4308 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) FIRST, DO NO HARM The federal, provincial and municipal governments in Canada have a responsibility to protect the health of Canadians as well as our Charter Rights and Freedoms. Any medical interventions approved by Health Canada must first be PROVEN SAFE. Due diligence in research, as well as adherence to established protocols of the doctor/patient relationship, informed consent and scientific inquiry are essential to carrying out that responsibility. Deviating from those practices, causing harm and failing to disclose risks of harm is negligent at best. Item 13.G 01/11/21 157 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4309 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) OVERVIEW Hierarchy of evidence Pfizer’s 2 month data report, Dec 31 2020 • ARR vs RRR explained - VIDEO • Early unblinding of Pfizer’s randomized control trial Pfizer’s 6 month data report, Sep 15 2021 • Increased risk of illness • Increased risk of death The Pfizer Trials - What went wrong • Pfizer did not follow established protocols • Misleading demographics - Wrong age • Misleading demographics - Tested on healthy, given to sick • Inadequate control groups • Did not track biomarkers • Wrong clinical endpoints • Not tested for spread reduction • Subjective testing • Missing data - Lost to follow up and suspected, but unconfirmed • Failure to test - Why it matters • 12 - 15 trial - All risk, no benefit • 12 - 15 trial - Failure to report serious adverse events • 5 - 11 year olds - Risking their health • Myocarditis is serious • The FDA abandons “First, do no harm” • 5 - 11 year olds - No informed consent • The BMJ Pfizer trial whistleblower article A critical eye on the Sep 15 2020 report • 6 month data manipulation - Mixed cohorts • The Pfizer trials did not prove safety - they proved harm How this is playing out in the real world • Roll out surveillance - You don’t find what you don’t look for • Rising incidents of heart issues in young people (Ontario Public Health Report) • This is not normal - High incidences of deaths in athletes (German, Israeli news articles) • This is supposed to be rare - VIDEO of athletes collapsing • Pfizer’s post marketing pharmacovigilance report Considerable evidence of conflict of interest • Pfizer is making billions • The public record of Pfizer’s corporate culture • Links to articles on Pfizer’s past behaviour • Conflicts of interest among Pfizer report authors • The CDC has redefined “vaccine” • The media has been captured - VIDEO This is no way to manage a supplier The inoculations should be withdrawn immediately Recommended reading & viewing Item 13.G 01/11/21 158 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4310 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE HIERARCHY OF EVIDENCE • A randomized control trial is LEVEL 1 Evidence, the highest form of evidence there is. It is considered the Gold Standard and is the only way to prove something is true. • Models are LEVEL 5 or lower as they are expert opinion/speculation. • Policy should be determined by the highest level of evidence available, LEVEL 1. Levels of Scientific Evidence Item 13.G 01/11/21 159 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4311 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PFIZER’S ORIGINAL TRIAL REPORT DECEMBER 31 2020 • Published in New England Journal of Medicine • Showed 2 months worth of safety & efficacy data • Described starting with 43,548 people divided into: 1. Treatment group (received inoculation) 2. Control group (received saline) for 2 months to see who developed COVID-19 • The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy 7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%. Click here to watch a 1 minute video explaining RRR vs ARR. Item 13.G 01/11/21 160 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4312 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) ABSOLUTE RISK REDUCTION VS RELATIVE RISK REDUCTION https://rumble.com/vobcg5-relative-vs-absolute-risk-reduction.html Item 13.G 01/11/21 161 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4313 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) EARLY UNBLINDING OF RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIAL = NO LONG TERM SAFETY DATA WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED INOCULATED GROUP PLACEBO GROUP INOCULATED GROUP PLACEBO GROUP July 27 2020 Phase III Begins The participants are evenly divided into Inoculated and Placebo groups of about 21,000 each. The study is blind. Dec 31 2020 Release 2 month data report. The trial is unblinded early. Crossover Occurs The participants from the Placebo Group are given the opportunity to take the inoculation and by early 2021, the majority of them have crossed over to the inoculated group. It’s no longer a randomized control trial, as control group is gone. May 2 2023 End of Phase III Clinical Trial The long term safety data that was supposed to be assessed at this point is no longer possible to ascertain as the placebo group crossed over two years previously. NO DATA ↓↓ 2023 NO DATA ↓↓ 2022 NO DATA ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●● 2021 ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● 2020 ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● July 27 2020 Phase III Begins The participants are evenly divided into Inoculated and Placebo groups of about 21,000 each. The study is blind, so participants don’t know which group they are in. ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● 2020 ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● ●●●●●●●●● 2021 ↓ ↓ 2022 ↓ ↓ 2023 ↓ ↓ May 2 2023 End of Phase III Clinical Trial This is the point where the trial can be unblinded and the Placebo group offered the intervention if it’s indicated and they consent. Item 13.G 01/11/21 162 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4314 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Th e ne w engl and jour nal of medicine Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months S.J. Thomas, E.D. Moreira, Jr., N. Kitchin, J. Absalon, A. Gurtman, S. Lockhart, J.L. Perez, G. Pérez Marc, F.P. Polack, C. Zerbini, R. Bailey, K.A. Swanson, X. Xu, S. Roychoudhury, K. Koury, S. Bouguermouh, W.V. Kalina, D. Cooper, R.W. Frenck, Jr., L.L. Hammitt, Ö. Türeci, H. Nell, A. Schaefer, S. Ünal, Q. Yang, P. Liberator, D.B. Tresnan, S. Mather, P.R. Dormitzer, U. Şahin, W.C. Gruber, and K.U. Jansen, for the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group* ABSTR ACT BACKGROUND BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syn- drome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. METHODS In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-µg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory- confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. RESULTS BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine ef- ficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previ- ous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS- CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was pre- dominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. CONCLUSIONS Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.) The authors’ full names, academic de- grees, and affiliations are listed in the Appendix. Dr. Dormitzer can be contact- ed at philip.dormitzer@pfizer.com or at Pfizer, 401 N. Middletown Rd., Pearl River, NY 10965. *A list of the investigators in the C4591001 Clinical Trial Group is provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org. This article was published on September 15, 2021, at NEJM.org. N Engl J Med 2021;385:1761-73. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society. CME at NEJM.org n engl j med 385;19 nejm.org November 4, 2021 1761 The New England Journal of Medicine Downloaded from nejm.org on November 10, 2021. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. Original Article PFIZER’S 6 MONTH REPORT DATA LEVEL 1 EVIDENCE OF HARM • Pfizer’s most recent report indicates an Efficacy of 91.3%. (Which means a reduction in positive cases compared to placebo group.) • But it also showed, compared to the placebo group, an increase in illness and deaths. • There is no benefit to a reduction in cases if it comes at the cost of increased sickness and death. 10 https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345?articleTools=true Item 13.G 01/11/21 163 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4315 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) INCREASED RISK OF ILLNESS A significant increase in illness, which the Pfizer inoculations were supposed to reduce. Screen capture from Pfizer 6 Month Supplementary Appendix 11 BNT162b2 Placebo Risk Change Efficacy (Meaning number of people diagnosed with COVID-19.) 77 850 -91% Related Adverse Event (Meaning an investigator has assessed it as related to the BNT162b2 injection.) 5,241 1,311 +300% Any Severe Adverse Event (Interferes significantly with normal function.) 262 150 +75% Any Serious Adverse Event (Involves visit to ER or hospitalization.) 127 116 +10% Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months - Supplementary Appendix Item 13.G 01/11/21 164 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4316 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Placebo 2 5 BNT162b2 1 9 Total COVID-19 Related Deaths Deaths Related to Cardiovascular Events INCREASED RISK OF DEATH BNT162b2 Placebo Deaths before unblinding (In Table S4 of Supplementary Appendix) 15 14 Deaths after unblinding (Not in table, but mentioned in text of 6 month report. See quote below.) 5 Total Deaths 20 14 “After unblinding” means when the Placebo participants were given the opportunity to “cross over” and take the BNT162b2 inoculation.* “…3 participants in the BNT162b2 group and 2 in the original placebo group who received BNT162b2 after unblinding died.” Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months Concerning Causes of Death 12 *A total of 19,525 subjects originally randomized to placebo received at least one dose of BNT162b2 after unblinding (Dose 3 and Dose 4) and before the March 13, 2021 data cutoff. Screen capture from Pfizer 6 Month Supplementary Appendix Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months - Supplementary Appendix Item 13.G 01/11/21 165 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4317 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE PFIZER TRIALS WHAT WENT WRONG Item 13.G 01/11/21 166 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4318 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PHASE III continues, but unblinded 2021 2020 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 PFIZER DID NOT FOLLOW ESTABLISHED PROTOCOLS NORMALLY, VACCINE DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE THIS, WITH A TIMELINE OF 5 TO 10 YEARS. RARELY, IT CAN BE DONE IN AS LITTLE AS 5 YEARS. FOR THE COVID-19 INOCULATIONS, IT WAS DONE IN 1 YEAR. ROLLOUT BEGINS • Animal testing was skipped • Phases II/III were combined • After 2 months of Phase II/III, Emergency Use Authorized • The trials were unblinded • Phase III trials are ongoing until 2023 Human Trials PHASE III Human Trials PHASE II Human Trials PHASE I In Vitro & Animal Models Human Trials PHASE III Safety & efficacy Human Trials PHASE II Safety & immune responses Human Trials PHASE I Safety, dosing, immune responses In Vitro & Animal Models Regarding the persistent claim that the COVID-19 inoculation products do not need to be tested, because mRNA technology has already undergone testing: mRNA technology is the delivery mechanism, not the inoculation. That’s like saying that since we’ve used syringes safely before, anything injected via syringe is safe. (And in fact, there are still a lot of unknowns about the effects of the mRNA delivery mechanism.) Item 13.G 01/11/21 167 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4319 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) MISLEADING DEMOGRAPHICS WRONG AGE FOR TARGET POPULATION When designing a trial for the efficacy and safety of a potential treatment, the focus should be on the target population who could most benefit from that treatment. Instead Pfizer chose participants from younger demographic that would be a) less likely to need a vaccine, b) less likely to suffer an adverse event during a trial, c) more likely to respond well to a vaccine, as the elderly have comparatively poor immune responses. COVID-19 Deaths per capita by age in the United States (as of Jun 5, 2021). Population-based on U.S. CDC WONDER Bridge-Race Population Estimate 2019. Data obtained from https://wonder.cdc.gov/bridged-race-v2019.html FACT SHEET FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS ADMINISTERING VACCINE (VACCINATION PROVIDERS) EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14471 Pfizer Trial Demographics Yet 75+ year olds represent only 4% of trial subjects. Actual Risk of Death by Age from COVID-19 58% of the people most at risk from COVID-19 are over 75. Item 13.G 01/11/21 168 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4320 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) MISLEADING DEMOGRAPHICS TESTED ON HEALTHY, GIVEN TO SICK REAL WORLD CO-MORBIDITIES 95% of people who have died with COVID-19 have had at least 1 co-morbidity listed as cause of death. The average is 4 co- morbidities. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm? fbclid=IwAR3- wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQpWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1 Q#Comorbidities PFIZER TRIAL CO-CONDITIONS Only 21% had a co-existing condition. https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577? articleTools=true Pfizer Trial Protocols - Exclusions IMPLICATIONS FOR ROLL OUT • We are told the inoculations are “safe.” Yet many health conditions - in fact a list several pages long - were excluded from the trials, including pregnant or breastfeeding women, people with allergies, with psychiatric conditions, immunocompromised people, people with bleeding disorders, people who had previously tested positive for COVID-19, people who had been prescribed steroids, etc., so there has never been any data to make safety claims about those people. Yet they are also not excluded from mandates and vaccine passports. • The vaccines were tested on the healthy, and then immediately given to the frailest members of the society - the elderly with multiple health conditions. This is unscientific and unethical. Item 13.G 01/11/21 169 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4321 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) INADEQUATE CONTROL GROUPS Pfizer only observed 2 groups: • UNEXPOSED & INOCULATED • UNEXPOSED & NOT INOCULATED They should have included two more groups: • EXPOSED & INOCULATED, people who had recovered, then got the inoculation, to see if the inoculation was safe for them • EXPOSED & NOT INOCULATED people who were recovered and not inoculated to see how the inoculations stacked up against natural immunity Experimental Group Placebo Group Should also have included UNEXPOSED + NOT INOCULATED UNEXPOSED + INOCULATED EXPOSED + NOT INOCULATED EXPOSED + INOCULATED Item 13.G 01/11/21 170 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4322 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) here) LOW QUALITY SAFETY SCIENCE DIDN’T TRACK BIOMARKERS As Kostoff et al. highlighted in a recent paper, “Why are we vaccinating children against COVID-19?” (highly recommended), that while the Pfizer trials tested for antibodies and tracked adverse events in terms of symptoms, they didn’t test for adverse events at the subclinical (pre-symptom) level. This was extremely unsafe, because symptoms/diseases are typically end points of processes that can take months, years, or decades to surface. By the time you get to symptoms, things can have gone pretty wrong. (Think diabetes or high blood pressure, where the disease can be quite advanced before any symptoms occur.) Pfizer should have been tracking biomarkers that would have been early warning indicators for disease caused by the inoculations. High quality safety science would have meant they should have tested before & after inoculation for: • d-dimers for evidence of enhanced coagulation/clotting (several of our doctors have noticed increased levels of d-dimers in inoculated patients presenting with stroke like symptoms - video available • C-reactive protein for evidence of enhanced inflammation • troponins for evidence of cardiac damage • occludin and claudin for evidence of enhanced barrier permeability • blood oxygen levels for evidence of enhanced hypoxia • amyloid-beta and phosphorylated tau for evidence of increased predisposition to Alzheimer’s disease • Serum HMGB1, CXCL13, Dickkopf-1 for evidence of an increased disposition to autoimmune disease, etc. Micro-clots resulting from the inoculation that were insufficient to cause observable symptoms could raise the baseline for thrombotic disease. RONALD N. KOSTOFF A, *, DANIELA CALINA B, DARJA KANDUC C, MICHAEL B. BRIGGS D, PANAYIOTIS VLACHOYIANNOPOULOS E, ANDREY A. SVISTUNOV F, ARISTIDIS TSATSAKIS “WHY ARE WE VACCINATING CHILDREN AGAINST COVID-19?” Item 13.G 01/11/21 171 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4323 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4. fectiveness (wh er not people contracted C “Do people who take the vaccines have less illness and death than those who don’t?” “Do people who take the vaccines test positive for COVID-19 less often?” NO. (The trial set up made this result unlikely). YES. Proceed to world wide roll out. WRONG CLINICAL ENDPOINTS SHOULD HAVE FOCUSED ON ALL CAUSE MORTALa PICRTtesYt + sy&mptoms)ILLNESS The fear with COVID-19, was that it was going to a) kill people, b) make them sick. So any COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial should set out to ask the question “Do people who take the vaccines have less illness and death than those who don’t?” Illness + Death should be the CLINICAL ENDPOINTS. And not just illness + death with COVID-19, but any and all illness and death, in order to make sure that the vaccines are not causing harm. This is well known. It was learned decades ago with cancer drug trials. At first, they used a clinical endpoint of “Did the drug shrink the cancer?” If it did, they called it effective. But it turned out the drugs were not only killing cancer, they were killing patients. They were forced to change the design of their trials and switch to “all cause mortality” as the primary endpoint instead and show that people receiving the drug actually live longer than those who don’t. (J.Bart Classen has written an excellent research article on the subject. Read here.) WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED (After the proper early safety phases of development were completed.) WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED (Without the proper early safety phases of development having been completed.) NO. Go back to the drawing board. YES. Proceed to long terms safety studies. Item 13.G 01/11/21 172 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4324 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) NOT TESTED FOR SPREAD REDUCTION VACCINE PASSPORTS UNJUSTIFIED Although vaccine passports are now being used to ostensibly prevent or reduce transmission of COVID-19, this outcome was never studied in the trial and it is inappropriate to assign that capability to these inoculations. There is no evidence at all that they reduce the spread of disease and transmission was never one of the study’s endpoints. Item 13.G 01/11/21 173 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4325 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) TESTING FAILURES SUBJECTIVE TESTING The Pfizer trials DID NOT test all participants for COVID- 19. Instead, they instructed their investigators to test only those with a COVID-19 symptom and left it up to their discretion to decide what those were. This means that: ◆ Asymptomatic infection would be missed entirely ◆ A high level of subjectivity was introduced to the study - an investigator had the ability to sway the results ◆ The lack of objective systematic testing makes results unreliable All participants should have been tested. Item 13.G 01/11/21 174 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4326 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PFIZER’S IN OCUL A TIONS F OR C OVID-19 / MORE HARM THAN GOOD MISSING DATA ◆ LOST TO FOLLOW UP ◆ SUSPECTED, BUT UNCONFIRMED Confirmed Cases Dec 31 2020 Report Lost to Follow Up Dec 31 2020 Report INOCULATED GROUP PLACEBO GROUP ENDPOINT DATA - Confirmed COVID Cases 8 162 Participants Lost to Follow Up 80 86 Suspected, but Unconfirmed Cases 1,594 1,816 The basis for the Emergency Use Authorization was the Confirmed COVID cases of 8 vs 162, which meant a Relative Risk Reduction of 95%. But when dealing with such a small number of cases, any change can impact the results significantly. Lost to follow up means they lost touch with those subjects and can’t confirm whether they got sick or not. They don’t know. Suspected, but unconfirmed means these people were symptomatic for COVID-19, but were never tested. (Discretion for testing was left up to the investigator.) The fact that the Lost to Follow Up and Suspected but Unconfirmed numbers are higher - and here they are even significantly higher - than the End Point numbers means that this data is unreliable. The study should not have been accepted in this state. In normal scientific practice they should have returned to investigate further. Suspected but Unconfirmed Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting December 10, 2020 FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Item 13.G 01/11/21 175 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4327 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Suspected, but not Confirmed Confirmed + Suspected No. of Confirmed Cases 20% FAILURE TO TEST WHY IT MATTERS If you add the Suspected to the Confirmed Cases, the Relative Risk Reduction changes to 19%. Less than 50% is ineligible for EUA. 16% 12% 8% 4% RRR 95% 1,594 1,816 = 1,602 0% Inoculation Placebo Inoculation Placebo Inoculation Placebo 23 1,978 + 162 SUSPECTED, NOT CONFIRMED Symptoms, but no PCR test CONFIRMED + SUSPECTED Symptoms, w and w/o PCT test CONFIRMED CASES Symptoms + PCR test They had symptoms, but were never tested. The very high proportion of Suspected, but Unconfirmed participants. 8 19% RRR Proportion of Participants Item 13.G 01/11/21 176 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4328 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 12-15 ADOLESCENT TRIAL ALL RISK, NO BENEFIT • This study was severely underpowered, as a study this small will not show up risk. - Inoculated group - 1,005 (0 tested positive for COVID-19) - Placebo group - 978 (18 tested positive for COVID-19) • Pfizer claimed these were great results, but since adolescents are at statistically 0% risk of death from COVID-19, and very low risk of severe illness, the inoculation is of little benefit to them. Instead, it presents a very real risk of adverse events. • But the adolescent Pfizer study wasn’t actually designed to find those. A serious adverse event, including death, that occurred at a 1/800 rate might not even show up in a sample of 1,005 people. • But in this case, it did. Among the 1,005 adolescents, there WAS at least one serious adverse event - Maddie de Garay. 24 “For children without a serious medical condition, the danger of severe Covid is so low as to be difficult to quantify.” -COVID AND AGE, Oct 12, 2021, New York Times Item 13.G 01/11/21 177 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4329 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 12 -15 ADOLESCENT TRIAL FAILURE TO REPORT SERIOUS ADVERSE EVENTS Maddie de Garay is a 12 year old trial participant who developed a serious reaction after her second dose and was hospitalized within 24 hours. Maddie developed gastroparesis, nausea and vomiting, erratic blood pressure, memory loss, brain fog, headaches, dizziness, fainting, seizures, verbal and motor tics, menstrual cycle issues, lost feeling from the waist down, lost bowel and bladder control and had an nasogastric tube placed because she lost her ability to eat. She has been hospitalized many times, and for the past 10 months she has been wheelchair bound and fed via tube. In their report to the FDA, Pfizer described her injuries as “functional abdominal pain.” Emergency Use Authorization Amendment Item 13.G 01/11/21 178 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4330 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PFIZER’S IN OCUL A TIONS F OR C OVID-19 / MORE HARM THAN GOOD 5 - 11 YEAR OLDS RISKING THEIR HEALTH Re: the 5 to 11 year old cohort In this table, Pfizer, using predictive modelling acknowledges that their inoculations WILL cause myocarditis, but optimistically claims there will be zero deaths from myocarditis in any of their modelled (speculation, level 5 evidence) scenarios. But even if it were true, there is no justification for causing harm to children this way. FIRST, DO NO HARM. There is now such a high expectation of heart problems from the inoculations among children that Sick Kids is putting out brochures on how to deal with them. FDA BRIEFING DOCUMENT EUA AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE FOR USE IN CHILDREN 5 THROUGH 11 YEARS OF AGE Low Level (Level 5 Evidence) SPECULATION - A Predictive Model Item 13.G 01/11/21 179 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4331 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) MYOCARDITIS IS SERIOUS MYOCARDITIS “Myocarditis is an inflammatory process of the myocardium. (Heart muscle.) Severe myocarditis weakens your heart so that the rest of your body doesn't get enough blood. Clots can form in your heart, leading to a stroke or heart attack.” THE US NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY INFORMATION “The mortality rate is up to 20% at 6.5 years.” https://jcmr-online.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1532-429X-13-S1-M7 Item 13.G 01/11/21 180 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4332 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE FDA ABANDONS FIRST, DO NO HARM Medical interventions are supposed to be PROVEN SAFE BEFORE the are rolled out in the population. Yet Dr. Eric Rubin, one of the 18 members of the FDA advisory panel who voted, to approve the inoculations for children 5 - 11, actually said the opposite, and suggested that a population level roll out was an appropriate way to test for adverse events. It’s worth noting that Dr. Eric Rubin is the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, which publishes the Pfizer trial reports. 28 “We’re never going to learn about how safe this vaccine is unless we start giving it. That’s just the way it goes. That’s how we found out about rare complications of other vaccines like the rotavirus vaccine. And I do think we should vote to approve it.” Dr. Eric Rubin, FDA advisory panel member, Harvard professor & editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee – 10/26/2021 Item 13.G 01/11/21 181 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4333 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 - 11 YEAR OLDS NO INFORMED CONSENT • Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is illegal in Canada, yet politicians from all levels of government are marketing inoculations to children, using cartoons and mascots. • They are proclaiming the inoculations to be safe, yet the data is not there to back that up. In addition to admitting that their inoculations can cause myocarditis, Pfizer also admits, right in their report, that their long term immune response, efficacy & safety data is limited and that their studies weren’t powered to find “rare” side effects as only1,517 kids got the inoculation. • How many parents would take their kids to get this shot if they were informed of this? The law of informed consent says they should be, but it’s not happening. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2116298 Item 13.G 01/11/21 182 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4334 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL PUBLISHES WHISTLEBLOWER STORY On November 2nd, the British Medical Journal released an article about their investigation into Ventavia, one of the research companies Pfizer hired to conduct the trials. It’s quite damning. The whistleblower is a Regional Director who actually reported her company to the FDA for: • Falsifying data • Unblinding participants • Not following up and testing participants who reported symptoms • Mislabelling specimens Several other employees backed up her account. Despite all this, neither Pfizer, nor the FDA ever audited or investigated the research company, Pfizer never disclosed the problems in its EUA application, and in fact, Pfizer has now hired that same Researcher, Ventavia, to run four more COVID-19 clinical trials. Item 13.G 01/11/21 183 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4335 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) A CRITICAL EYE BACK ON THE SEP 15 2021 REPORT 31 RU N N I N G F O O T E R E L E M E N T Item 13.G 01/11/21 184 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4336 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 MONTH DATA MANIPULATION MIXED COHORTS Pfizer took the results from their adult trial, which started July 27, 2020, and then added the results from the 12 - 15 year olds’ trial, despite the fact that the adolescent trial started four months later. Since it’s well known that the efficacy of the inoculations wanes over time, this gives a false boost to the efficacy numbers. The efficacy for these two cohorts should have been reported separately, not presented as one combined result. Without this boost, their efficacy number would likely have fallen. Jul 27 Adult Trial (16+) Begins Dec Adolescent Trial (12 - 15) Begins Mar 13 Data Cutoff Date for Efficacy Reported in 6 Month Study MAR FEB JAN DEC NOV OCT SEP AUG JULY 2021 2020 Item 13.G 01/11/21 185 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4337 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PFIZER TRIALS DID NOT PROVE SAFETY THEY PROVED HARM ILLNESS DEATHS These are the results of Pfizer’s own randomized control trial. LEVEL 1 EVIDENCE OF HARM. BNT162b2 Placebo 20 14 BNT162b2 Placebo Risk Change Efficacy (Meaning number of people diagnosed with COVID-19.) 77 850 -91% Related Adverse Event (Meaning an investigator has assessed it as related to the BNT162b2 injection.) 5,241 1,311 +300% Any Severe Adverse Event (Interferes significantly with normal function.) 262 150 +75% Any Serious Adverse Event (Involves visit to ER or hospitalization.) 127 116 +10% Item 13.G 01/11/21 186 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4338 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) HOW THIS IS PLAYING OUT IN THE REAL WORLD Item 13.G 01/11/21 187 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4339 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) ROLL OUT SURVEILLANCE YOU DON’T FIND WHAT YOU DON’T LOOK FOR 100 ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE OF TRIAL PARTICIPANTS 100 PASSIVE SURVEILLANCE OF POPULATION ROLL OUT There is a dramatic difference between passive vs active monitoring of adverse events 1. When participants were actively followed for adverse events (AEs) in the trials, high percentages of adverse events were reported. 2. Once the vaccine was rolled out at the population level, passive surveillance was used with Health Canada, VAERS or the European Yellow Card system. When that happened, the signal was completely lost. 35 NO V E M B E R 18 2 0 21 75 50 25 0 NCT04368728 BNT162b2 Thomas NEJM 2021 Solicited v- safe Gee MMWR 2021 Solicited NCT04368728 BNT162b2 Thomas NEJM 2021 Unsolicited 75 50 25 0 VAERS CDC Wonder Public Access Health Canada Public Access UK Yellow Card Public Access 30% 2% 5% 71% 78% AE Rate Severe AE Rate THE SIGNAL IS LOST 2.5 0.07 0.29 AE Rate Severe AE Rate VS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POPULATION. Item 13.G 01/11/21 188 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4340 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) RISING INCIDENTS OF HEART ISSUES IN YOUNG PEOPLE Ontario Public Health is well aware of this, as they published a report on it, but they seem inconsistent in their concerns. • On Sep 29, 2021, Ontario Public Health recommended young men 18-24 not take the Moderna shot, because of a 1 in 5,000 risk of myocarditis. They suggested Pfizer shot instead, which has a 1 in 28,000 risk of myocarditis. • But as recently as May 8, 2021, Ontario had stopped the Astra Zeneca shot because of a 1 in 60,000 risk of clotting side effects, which was considered too high. • Their priorities are inconsistent. 36 Item 13.G 01/11/21 189 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4341 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PFIZER’S IN OCUL A TIONS F OR C OVID-19 / MORE HARM THAN GOOD THIS IS NOT NORMAL A German news site put together a list of over 75 known cases of athletes collapsing - and even dying - in the last 5 months. https://report24.news/ab-13-jahren-lange-liste-ploetzlich-verstorbener-oder- schwerkranker-sportler/ An Israeli news site analyzed the number of sudden deaths “on the pitch” of members of the International Football Association (FIFA) over the past 20 years. The average number of FIFA sudden deaths between 2000 - 2020 was 4.2. In 2021, it was 21. https://www.rtnews.co.il/?view=article&id=49&catid=22 Item 13.G 01/11/21 190 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4342 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE RARE https://rumble.com/vpnxkr-are-these-side-effects-extremely-rare.html Item 13.G 01/11/21 191 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4343 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PFIZER’S POST MARKETING PHARMACOVIGILANCE REPORT • On Nov 17, 2021, the FDA released the first batch of what will ultimately be 329,000 pages they were ordered by a court to provide to satisfy a Freedom of Information request by a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency who want access to the data used by the FDA to approve Pfizer’s COVID-19 inoculations. (The FDA asked in court to have over 50 years to release the documents.) • One post marketing pharmacovigilance report submitted to the FDA, where Pfizer tracked real world adverse events occurring in the first 2.5 months after Emergency Use Authorization, was particularly disturbing. ◆ Over 1,200 deaths ◆ Over 25,000 nervous system adverse events ◆ Under “Safety concerns” Pfizer listed Anaphylaxis and Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease • This document should be incriminating for any agency who saw it and called these inoculations “safe.” Item 13.G 01/11/21 192 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4344 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) CONSIDERABLE EVIDENCE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Item 13.G 01/11/21 193 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4345 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PFIZER IS MAKING BILLIONS $33.5B+ in 2021 alone. When the incentive is such an astronomical sum of money, it only makes sense to ensure rigorous oversight of the process and to ensure as many safeguards as possible are in place. Their agenda is their bottom line, not public health. Item 13.G 01/11/21 194 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4346 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE PUBLIC RECORD OF PFIZER’S CORPORATE CULTURE 42 NO V E M B E R 18 2 0 21 Item 13.G 01/11/21 195 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4347 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) LINKS TO THE PUBLIC RECORD OF PFIZER’S CORPORATE CULTURE • Pfizer Unit to Settle Charges Of Lying About Heart Valve, Jul 2, 1994 https://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/02/business/pfizer-unit-to-settle-charges-of-lying- about-heart-valve.html • Pfizer to Pay $430 Million Over Promoting Drug to Doctors, May 14, 2004 https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/14/business/pfizer-to-pay-430-million-over- promoting-drug-to-doctors.html • $60 Million Deal In Pfizer Suit over Rezulin, July 3, 2004 https://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/03/business/60-million-deal-in-pfizer-suit.html • Experts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies, Oct 8, 2008 https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/health/research/08drug.html • Pfizer to Pay $2.3 Billion for Fraudulent Marketing, Sep 2, 2009 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud- settlement-its-history • Pfizer Admits Paying $35 Million to Doctors Over Last 6 Months, Apr 1, 2010 https://www.news-medical.net/news/20100401/Pfizer-admits-paying-2435- million-to-doctors-over-last-6-months.aspx • Pfizer Pays Out to Nigerian Families of Meningitis Drug Trial Victims, Aug 12, 2011 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/11/pfizer-nigeria- meningitis-drug-compensation • Pfizer Pays US$60M to Settle Allegations of Bribing Doctors, Aug 7, 2012 https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/health-headlines/pfizer-pays-us-60m-to-settle- allegations-of-bribing-doctors-1.906216 • SEC Charges Pfizer with FCPA Violations, Aug 7, 2012 https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-152htm • US High Court Leaves Intact $142 million Verdict Against Pfizer, Dec 9, 2013 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-pfizer-idUSBRE9B80K020131209 • Pfizer Fined Record £84.2m for Overcharging NHS, Dec 7, 2016 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38233852 • Sonofi, FSK, Pfizer, Boehringer Must Face Zantac Class-Action Lawsuits: Court Oct 15, 2021 https://medicaldialogues.in/news/industry/pharma/sanofi-gsk- pfizer-boehringer-must-face-zantac-class-action-lawsuits-court-83138 Item 13.G 01/11/21 196 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4348 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Corresponding Author Last Author BBioioNNTTeecchh fouFnoduenrdsewrshose wshtocske vstaolcuke vailnucereinacsreedasbeyd $b9y b$i9llBion Employment + Stock N. Kitchin J. Absalon S. Lockhart R. Bailey K.A. Swanson S. Roychoudhury K. Koury W.V. Kalina D. Cooper, D.B. Tresnan S. Mather P.R. Dormitzer U. Şahin W.C. Gruber K.U. Jansen Ö. Türeci Grant/Consultant/ Clinical Trial R.W. Frenck, Jr. L.L. Hammitt S. Ünal S.J. Thomas G. Pérez Marc F.P. Polack Lead Author No Conflict E.D. Moreira, Jr H. Nell C. Zerbini A. Schaefer Q. Yang No Conflict 16% Conflicts 84% CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AMONG PFIZER REPORT AUTHORS 6 MONTH REPORT AUTHORS Employment A. Gurtman J.L. Perez S. Bouguermouh P. Liberator X. Xu Item 13.G 01/11/21 197 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4349 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE CDC HAS REDEFINED “VACCINE" TO SUIT POLITICAL & PHARMACEUTICAL INTERESTS For many years Jul 27, 2021 Aug 18, 2021 Starting Sep 2, 2021 CDC Definition of VACCINE "A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease." Head of CDC Rochelle Walensky went on CNN and admitted the COVID-19 vaccines do not provide immunity - they don’t stop people from catching or transmitting COVID-19. Joe Biden announced booster shots for all Americans. CDC Definition of VACCINE CHANGED "A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases." This looks like fraud. Item 13.G 01/11/21 198 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4350 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE MEDIA HAS BEEN CAPTURED https://rumble.com/voz64j-brought-to-you-by-pfizer.html Item 13.G 01/11/21 199 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4351 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THIS IS NO WAY TO MANAGE A SUPPLIER Pfizer has been indemnified for damages in case their inoculations hurt and kill people, and Pfizer profits to the tune of billions if the trials are successful. No reasonable, responsible person would have given Pfizer carte blanche in such a situation. Instead, you would engage in rigorous oversight and hold them to the highest scientific standards. This was not done. Item 13.G 01/11/21 200 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4352 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE INOCULATIONS SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN IMMEDIATELY • It’s clear that Pfizer - and the agencies overseeing their trials - failed to follow established, high quality safety and efficacy protocols right from the beginning. • We have presented Level 1 evidence of harm from Pfizer’s own trial data. Any government which has approved these inoculations, much less mandated them, knew or should have known from the available data that harm would be caused to its citizens. • Any government that approved this medical intervention for its citizens should have ensured that the trial had used the appropriate clinical endpoints and high quality safety science. • Any government official who possesses this evidence and continues to allow its citizens to be inoculated with a toxic agent is, at the very least, negligent. Item 13.G 01/11/21 201 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4353 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) RECOMMENDED READING/VIEWING PUBLISHED PAPERS REFUTING PFIZER INOCULATIONS • Why Are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID-19? https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X • US COVID-19 Vaccines Proven to Cause More Harm than Good Based on Pivotal Clinical Trial Data Analyzed Using the Proper Scientific Endpoint, “All Cause Severe Morbidity” https://www.scivisionpub.com/ pdfs/us-covid19-vaccines-proven-to-cause-more-harm-than-good-based-on- pivotal-clinical-trial-data-analyzed-using-the-proper-scientific--1811.pdf PFIZER’S NEJM PUBLISHED RESULTS • Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine https:// www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 • FDA Briefing Document, Dec 10, 2020 https://www.fda.gov/media/ 144245/download • Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345 • The 6 Month Supplementary Appendix https://www.nejm.org/doi/ suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2110345/suppl_file/ nejmoa2110345_appendix.pdf BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL • Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 ONTARIO PUBLIC HEALTH EPIDEMIOLOGICAL SUMMARY • Myocarditis and Pericarditis Following Vaccination with COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines in Ontario: December 13, 2020 to September 4, 2021 https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/ covid-19-myocarditis-pericarditis-vaccines-epi.pdf?sc_lang=en SHORT VIDEOS • Informed Consent - It’s Your Right (3 minutes) https://rumble.com/ vleq43-informed-consent-its-your-right.html • Brought to You by Pfizer (1 minute) https://rumble.com/voz64j-brought- to-you-by-pfizer.html • Why Do We Need Vaccine Passports? (2 minutes) https://rumble.com/ vn1zof-why-do-we-need-vaccine-passports.html • COVID-19 Vaccines and D-Dimer levels (9 minutes) https://rumble.com/ voeisj-dr-rochagn-kilian-blowing-the-whistle-on-covid-19-vaccines-and-d- dimer-leve.html • How Reliable Is the PCR Test? (2 minutes) https://youtu.be/gL7Z5JmRIM4 Item 13.G 01/11/21 202 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4354 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WE NEED YOU TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE • This evidence is a tool you can use. It represents a real opportunity to hold our leaders accountable as it is not opinion, or modelling, or real world evidence that can be dismissed or manipulated, but LEVEL 1 EVIDENCE from a randomized control trial. As such, it has high evidentiary value. • We’re asking that you call your MP and MPP and that you ask for a 1 hour meeting. Preferably in person, but Zoom will work too. • During the meeting, play them the video and provide them with the PDF version. Ask them questions, like whether or not they were aware of all the issues with the Pfizer trial. Or what they plan to do now that they are. Get them to agree to a follow up meeting where they will provide you with answers. • Share this video with friends and family. Have group viewing sessions on Zoom and discuss it. • Share this video and the PDF on social media. When you do, please use the hashtags #CCCA and #MoreHarmThanGood • Please join our mailing list at www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org and we will update you with additional evidence as we have it. • Follow us on social media. This linktree has all our social accounts. • This presentation is available in PDF and video format on our website at www.canadiancovidcarealliance.org Item 13.G 01/11/21 203 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4355 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) THE PFIZER INOCULATIONS FOR COVID-19 MORE HARM THAN GOOD CONTACT US INFO@CANADIANCOVIDCAREALLIANCE.ORG WWW.CANADIANCOVIDCAREALLIANCE.ORG Item 13.G 01/11/21 204 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4356 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: vaccine passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Annette Bator <annettemermaid101@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:40 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: vaccine passports EXTERNAL I do not support the initiative that there be vaccine passports. This infringes on our basic freedom to choose how to take care of our health. There are many people who for health reasons cannot take a vaccine. This violates the constitutional right to choose our own health care and it will also affect many businesses that will lose many customers because of this proposed mandate. Please keep Santa Monica a forward thinking city that does not impose unfair and fascist type mandates on anyone. Thank you, thank you for considering the rights of people rather than giving in to the pressures from the pharmaceutical industry. We all want to be safe from covid but this is the wrong way to do that and will alienate and harm people and businesses. Sent from my iPad Item 13.G 01/11/21 205 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4357 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: From: Nikita Motorin <motorumba@mail.ru> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:48 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 206 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4358 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports From: Chris Meadows <cameadow@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:30 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Hello, Vaccine passports are a bad idea. Considering a large number of people falling ill is because of the vaccine and the violation of law in imposing such mandates, the City of Santa Monica should NOT consider these passports. Besides being un‐American, it is also a threat to the public health to be vaccinated. Please see this site for analysis of the dangers of the vaccines: VAERS Analysis – Weekly analysis of the VAERS data Chris Meadows cameadow@gmail.com Item 13.G 01/11/21 207 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4359 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:35 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No support ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Holly Beth <greeneyesf204@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:09 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No support EXTERNAL I do not support vaccine passports. I want everyone to have choice. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 208 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4360 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:36 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: AprilDudsic <aprildudsic@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:12 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Do NOT Vote for Vaccine Passports for Santa Monica. The vaccinated can get and spread Covid19 slightly less than the Unvaccinated. The Vaccinated are catching the Covid19 Variants like Delta and Omicron at a much higher level of 8‐26 times MORE than the Unvaccinated. The Vaccinated are not spreading disease less and in fact may be spreading it more. A Vaccine Passport makes zero sense for health or safety. A Vaccine Passport only seems to reward the OBEDIENCE of the people to get a shot. It harms businesses and is unconstitutional as it voids « the pursuit of happiness ». It is illegal segregation. It is anti‐American. Oppose any type of Vaccine Pass, Green Pass, Vaccine Passport, etcetera. Bests, April Dudsic Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 209 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4361 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:37 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: OPPOSITION TO SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT From: Arlene Kramer <arlenekramer@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:30 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: OPPOSITION TO SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT EXTERNAL I FLATLY OPPOSE A SANTA MONICA VACCINE PASSPORT Arguments against the SM-V Passport. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion Item 13.G 01/11/21 210 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4362 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Item 13.G 01/11/21 211 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4363 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:37 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Proof of Vaccination From: Sue Opdyke <sue.opdyke@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:56 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Proof of Vaccination EXTERNAL Members of the Santa Monica City Council: It has been brought to our attention that several of you plan to implement by executive order or present for vote an emergency ordinance requiring "proof of vaccination” at tomorrow evening’s City Council Meeting. Proof of Vaccination smacks of dictatorship, violating personal liberties, various existing laws and regulations, not to mention the United States Constitution, and for some, even their religious beliefs. As such, the City of Santa Monica would be liable. If suits were brought city funds, garnered from the taxes of all Santa Monica residents, would likely be used to defray legal expenses. Surely by now our elected City Council Members are cognizant of the fact that even with a majority of the population vaccinated, the virus continues to spread, recreating itself into new variants. Transmission of Covid‐19 is, in fact, more easily passed from the vaccinated, who are less likely to show signs of the illness, than from the unvaccinated, who, if infected are, far more likely, be in their homes, quarantining! Has there been a study with findings that Los Angeles infectious cases are dropping due to the mandates in that city? Who will be appointed to monitor each person entering a facility that requires proof of vaccination? Who will monitor that monitors? To act on the intentions of Councilmember Brock, Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmember Parra would indeed be unfair and unwise. Discretion is the better part of valor. Please defeat this proposal if it is brought to a vote. Very Sincerely, Suzanne Opdyke 251 14th St. Item 13.G 01/11/21 212 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4364 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Santa Monica, 90402 Item 13.G 01/11/21 213 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4365 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:36 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine mandate is not justified. From: Felix Sahig <felixsahig@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:57 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine mandate is not justified. EXTERNAL The IFR (Infection Fatality Rate) for COVID is, at most, 1.4%. There is no justification whatsoever for a vaccine mandate in any jurisdiction when the IFR is so low. Felix Sahig Email: felixsahig@yahoo.com Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Item 13.G 01/11/21 214 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4366 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:36 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No to vaccine passports From: jessica alpern <rojitaone@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:02 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No to vaccine passports EXTERNAL This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be Item 13.G 01/11/21 215 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4367 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 216 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4368 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 8 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:36 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Kymberly Ponegalek <snooopy33@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:03 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine passport EXTERNAL No vaccine passports! Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 217 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4369 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Jon Katz <tmbjon@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM To:councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Oscar de la Torre; Lana Negrete Subject:Item 13G - Support EXTERNAL Thank you so much, Councilmember Brock, Mayor Himmelrich, and Councilmember Parra, for your leadership in bringing forward this item to require up‐to‐date vaccinations at certain indoor facilities. I fully support this item and urge the Council to vote yes. The scientific data is in and it's unambigious: vaccinated people are less likely to catch, spread, or become seriously ill from Covid‐19. This pandemic is being driven by unvaccinated people, unmasked and indoors, spreading omicron and other variants to their friends, neighbors, customers, and workers. The same data also points to another crucial factor which will help bring an end to this pandemic: vaccine mandates increase vaccination rates. I can confirm first‐hand that the vaccine skeptical people in my own life all eventually came around and opted into getting their vaccine when they realized it would allow them to safely re‐enter society, participate in indoor activities, and see the family members they'd been away from for years. All of us have the same goal ‐ to end this horrible pandemic and return to our lives. Enacting this indoor vaccine requirement is the best way we can be proactive in minimizing infection rates, ending the burden on small businesses, and returning to our precious in‐person communities. Thank you, ‐‐ Jon Katz | President, Santa Monica Democratic Club tmbjon@gmail.com cell: (215) 962‐4357 Item 13.G 01/11/21 218 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4370 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No vax passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Paul Ruffman <paulmichaelr@me.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:48 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No vax passports EXTERNAL No vax psaaports Item 13.G 01/11/21 219 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4371 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No vax passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Beth Anon <bethruffman@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:48 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No vax passports EXTERNAL No vax passports Item 13.G 01/11/21 220 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4372 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Arguments against the SM-V Passport. From: denise@delilahmcsheandai.com <denise@delilahmcsheandai.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:49 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Arguments against the SM‐V Passport. EXTERNAL Dear David White, and City Council, This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they have not been vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Please do consider your proceeding such a heinous step as the thin end of the wedge. Item 13.G 01/11/21 221 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4373 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Yous truly, Delilah Mc Sheandai Item 13.G 01/11/21 222 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4374 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:38 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Opposition to Santa Monica vaccine mandate ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Hannah Bliss <hannah.bliss@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:50 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Opposition to Santa Monica vaccine mandate EXTERNAL I am writing to state my opposition to the proposed covid 19 vaccine mandate for the city of Santa Monica. Anybody can contract and transmit covid 19, regardless of vaccine status, so what purpose would a mandate serve? It would give people a false sense of security, that because they are vaccinated they are able to go to bars, restaurants and gyms etc, regardless of whether they feel unwell (they will likely have lesser symptoms). They will not need to test to check if they are positive or negative, but instead will be welcomed in to these businesses. If anyone should test it could be argued that vaccinated people should be the ones testing ( if the vaccine is working to reduce symptoms, they are less likely to know they are sick, therefore more likely to feel ok while sick and spread the virus; a sick vaccinated person, and unvaccinated will carry the same viral load). How is a vaccine passport helpful here. It only appears coercive. If this mandate is to ensure more public safety, ALL people should be required to test before entering any public establishment. If this is not realistic, then no one should be required. Where does natural immunity count in all of this? Those with natural immunity may have fewer antibodies, but they are more robust, and decline much more slowly than those that have vaccine induced immunity. If a vaccine passport is put in while ignoring natural immunity, this seems to be about compliance rather than acknowledging any sort of science. Recent research shows that covid enters into fat cells, and as a result, obese individuals will carry a higher viral load, and will be more likely to enter the hospital as a result. Will we also implement a BMI passport? Where do we draw the line? In short, the vaccine passport will give the illusion of safety, but really is only used to coerce individuals into doing something they do not want to do, feel comfortable doing, or may be unable to do because of medical reasons. Thank you, Hannah Bliss Item 13.G 01/11/21 223 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4375 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:40 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No to vaccine passports From: Amy Chen <amyc91362@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:25 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No to vaccine passports EXTERNAL Vote no on vaccine passports. Amy Chen Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 224 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4376 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:39 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Against Vaccine passports From: Marina <mar.letu@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:38 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Against Vaccine passports EXTERNAL To whom it may concern: This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a viol ation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Thank you for your time, Marina Letu Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 225 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4377 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:39 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passport From: Peggy Fisher <its.peggy.sue.fisher@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:38 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL To the Santa Monica City Council, including Council Members Brock, Himmelrich and Parra, I do not support implementing a vaccine passport. It is illegal. It is coercion. Your policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents and customers that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents and customers to get vaccinated thereby using a system of coercion. This is illegal under 8 felony statutes. Are you truly interested in creating a civil violation of the law; namely, 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, and 18 US Code section 2331 ? Under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, it states it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Through US Law, the Nuremberg Code is thus embraced. Defined under 18 US Code section 2331 and subsection 802, domestic terrorism is when a ciitizen or government is forced to do something. Forcing a citizen or government to do something is not only coercion but also domestic terrorism. It is illegal to coerce the population, it is a felony that bears a 99 year prison term and up to $100 million fine for an institution, which you would be liable for upon implementing such a passport. Should you neglect to re-examine this path, to my knowledge, there are 8 felony statutes associated with such a liability. Sincerely, Peggy Fisher Item 13.G 01/11/21 226 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4378 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:39 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Arguments against the SM-V Passport. From: Valentina Landa <vlanda2000@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:36 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Arguments against the SM‐V Passport. EXTERNAL To Whom it may concern: Arguments against the SM-V Passport. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. Item 13.G 01/11/21 227 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4379 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Thank you Valentina Item 13.G 01/11/21 228 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4380 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:39 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose Vaccine passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Leila Feinstein <leilafeinstein@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:36 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Oppose Vaccine passport EXTERNAL I vehemently disagree with the Vaccine Passport . It is unconstitutional and I will sue . Do not pass!! An upset voter , Leila Feinstein Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 229 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4381 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:42 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: New Study of 145 Countries shows COVID vaccines makes cases and deaths worse From: Lynn Komlenic <lynnkomlenic@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:14 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: New Study of 145 Countries shows COVID vaccines makes cases and deaths worse EXTERNAL Do you want your legacy to be subjecting the great people of Santa Monica to more illness and death? You can read about it here: https://vector‐news.github.io/editorials/CausalAnalysisReport_html.html The abstract says: The statistically significant and overwhelmingly positive causal impact after vaccine deployment on the dependent variables total deaths and total cases per million should be highly worrisome for policy makers. They indicate a marked increase in both COVID‐19 related cases and death due directly to a vaccine deployment that was originally sold to the public as the “key to gain back our freedoms.” The effect of vaccines on total cases per million and its low positive association with total vaccinations per hundred signifies a limited impact of vaccines on lowering COVID‐19 associated cases. These results should encourage local policy makers to make policy decisions based on data, not narrative, and based on local conditions, not global or national mandates. These results should also encourage policy makers to begin looking for other avenues out of the pandemic aside from mass vaccination campaigns. Please seek better ways to meet your needs. Please educate yourselves on the deleterious nature of these technologies. If you pass a vaccine mandate, you are surely killing people. Is this your intention? From: Lynn Komlenic [mailto:lynnkomlenic@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:03 PM To: 'council@smgov.net'; 'David.White@santamonica.gov' Subject: I urge you to say NO to vaccine passports To Santa Monica City Council, I am vehemently opposed to vaccine passports and urge you to consider the deeply negative and destructive effects to individuals, families, business, the state and our nation of enacting this policy. First, it is FACT that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing transmission is not based on science and only works to create and sanction a discriminatory policy that hurts people, children, businesses—essentially all constituents of SM. Secondly, this policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy; this is a violation of HIPA. Item 13.G 01/11/21 230 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4382 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Third, this policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated, by creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Furthermore, a policy of this nature refuses to honor religious exemption, which is a human right. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery, and housing. I urge you to not take this illegal, unlawful, life‐depleting action. I further urge Council members to avail themselves of credible information from qualified professionals. Here are links to just a few: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: https://aapsonline.org/?s=mccullough Dr. Peter McCullough: https://www.truthforhealth.org/the‐mccullough‐report/ and https://aapsonline.org/?s=mccullough Dr. Pierre Kory: https://covid19criticalcare.com/team/pierre‐kory‐m‐d‐m‐p‐a/ Sincerely, Lynn Komlenic Item 13.G 01/11/21 231 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4383 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:42 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Beth Smith <bethcsmith22@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:19 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Hello! I strongly oppose a vaccine passport in Santa Monica. Are you being paid to implement this OBVIOUS GOVERNMENT OVERREACH? If so, how do you sleep at night? Please find justice and love in your heart and vote AGAINST THIS INSANITY. THE “VACCINES” DON’T WORK. We will be required to get boosters every 5 months for an injection that has miserably FAILED. Thank you for your time ~ Beth Smith Item 13.G 01/11/21 232 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4384 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:41 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: vaccine passport From: Bonnie Johnstone <bonniejohnstone789@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:24 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David.White@santamonica.gov.net Subject: Re: vaccine passport EXTERNAL And to add, please trust your constituents to do the right thing.. Thanks. Bonnie Johnstone On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 7:03 PM Bonnie Johnstone <bonniejohnstone789@gmail.com> wrote: Hello, I am concerned about health & safety However a vaccine passport presents potential for many unhappy problems such as : Discrimination, Isolation, Denial of needed services; Violation of civil rights, Waste of money & time for enforcement for the city , businesses‐ taking away from the jobs they need to perform. Please, No vote on vaccine passport! Thank you. Sincerely, Bonnie Johnstonew Item 13.G 01/11/21 233 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4385 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:41 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO TO VACCINE PASSORTS!!! ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Janine Barris <janinebarris@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:32 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO TO VACCINE PASSORTS!!! EXTERNAL To David and City Counsel Members, I do not support a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion! It is also a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise to slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to create discrimination. The Santa Monica Vaccine Passport would create division among residents and essentially a second ‐ class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Thank you, Janine Item 13.G 01/11/21 234 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4386 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:41 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORTS FOR Santa Monica! From: Gail McManus <gail@gailmcmanus.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:29 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORTS FOR Santa Monica! EXTERNAL Dear City Council Representatives, I am a resident of Santa Monica. I just learned of the proposal for vaccine passports in Santa Monica in order to access many services. This is a violation of human rights and certainly violates federal laws. I believe that the proposed mandate intends to coerce residents to take the vaccination or face severe limitations regarding access to important venues. Residents of Santa Monica have the right to choice based on sound medical evidence against vaccination. It is my hope that the City Council will not support vaccine passports in Santa Monica. Sincerely, Gail McManus ‐‐ www.gailmcmanus.com gail@gailmcmanus.com 518 653‐2957 Item 13.G 01/11/21 235 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4387 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:40 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Mandates for a non dangerous virus From: Charles Donahue <charles@aamllc.co> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:28 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Mandates for a non dangerous virus EXTERNAL Prepare to be voted out if you try and pass a vaccine mandate. You are showing how stupid you are. Over 90% of all deaths with SARS‐CoV‐2 (not necessarily from COVID‐19) are in the population of people with multiple comorbidities Item 13.G 01/11/21 236 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4388 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 8 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:42 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Keeley Kaukimoce <locknkey99@me.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:08 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Hi, I am writing to you today to let you know that I adamantly oppose Vaccine passports being imposed on Santa Monica Facilities and businesses. At this point the science is EXETREMELY clear that you can get covid, and pass it on to others While being vaccinated. It literally makes zero difference in terms of transmission. There is no logical reason to keep Unvaccinated patrons out of businesses as they pose zero threat to anyone. The vaccinated are actually more of a threat to the Public because they are more likely to be asymptomatic and a lot of the time not subject to testing. This is becoming more clear that This has absolutely nothing to do with health, logic or science. This vaccine program has caused deaths and injuries to many many people And to force tax payers to inject themselves with a medication just to be able to live normal life is unconstitutional and actually it's completely illegal. This will not help solve the pandemic in anyway at all. This is obvious as there have been more deaths in 2021 then there were in 2020 before there was a vax. It will however strengthen the pocketbooks of many politicians. Please protect the people of Santa Monica by fighting for their right to bodily autonomy and by protecting their constitutional rights. Thank you, Keeley Item 13.G 01/11/21 237 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4389 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Judy Barnett <judybarnett26@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:46 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Please mandate proof of Vaccines! EXTERNAL Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 238 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4390 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:43 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I urge you to say NO to vaccine passports From: Lynn Komlenic <lynnkomlenic@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:03 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: I urge you to say NO to vaccine passports EXTERNAL To Santa Monica City Council, I am vehemently opposed to vaccine passports and urge you to consider the deeply negative and destructive effects to individuals, families, business, the state and our nation of enacting this policy. First, it is FACT that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing transmission is not based on science and only works to create and sanction a discriminatory policy that hurts people, children, businesses—essentially all constituents of SM. Secondly, this policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy; this is a violation of HIPA. Third, this policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated, by creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Furthermore, a policy of this nature refuses to honor religious exemption, which is a human right. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery, and housing. I urge you to not take this illegal, unlawful, life‐depleting action. I further urge Council members to avail themselves of credible information from qualified professionals. Here are links to just a few: Association of American Physicians and Surgeons: https://aapsonline.org/?s=mccullough Dr. Peter McCullough: https://www.truthforhealth.org/the‐mccullough‐report/ and https://aapsonline.org/?s=mccullough Dr. Pierre Kory: https://covid19criticalcare.com/team/pierre‐kory‐m‐d‐m‐p‐a/ Sincerely, Lynn Komlenic Item 13.G 01/11/21 239 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4391 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:42 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORT in SANTA MONICA From: Amy Fraz <liviandme46@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 8:04 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORT in SANTA MONICA EXTERNAL The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COV from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is s not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to th Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPAA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated wit and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an e coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they sho public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair t the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPAA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that san denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. -- This city has already been destroyed by ruining small businesses, out of control homelessness and devastati education. You will nail the coffin completely shut by passing this unlawful ordinance. A very concerned 22 year citizen... Item 13.G 01/11/21 240 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4392 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:58 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: no vaxx passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Angela DiGaetano <angeladigaetano@mac.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:52 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: no vaxx passports EXTERNAL Good evening. As a resident homeowner and tax payer with children in the public schools, i would like to plead with you to support and speak for your constituents. We elected you to speak for us. Please hear us. I am ferociously against the proposal of a vaccine passport for many reasons. Something of this nature does not represent the diversity and inclusion that santa monica prides itself on. Please read below: This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. Item 13.G 01/11/21 241 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4393 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. I ask you to remember we are a community of inclusion and freedom of choice. Thank you Angela DiGaetano Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 242 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4394 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:58 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Opposed to Vaccine Mandates, Passports for Santa Monica ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Christopher Toussaint <c2saint@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:54 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Opposed to Vaccine Mandates, Passports for Santa Monica EXTERNAL Ladies and gentlemen, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the imposition of a vaccine passport citywide. This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. Any SM Vaccine Passport would not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine this is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. 4. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 5. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 6. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Christopher Toussaint Item 13.G 01/11/21 243 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4395 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:58 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Aileen Leijten <aileen@aleijten.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:58 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Dear Council, I don not support enacting the vaccine passport in Santa Monica. Aileen Leijten Item 13.G 01/11/21 244 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4396 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:56 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: VOTE NO on vaccine passports From: Elise Lininger <elise.lininger@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:50 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: VOTE NO on vaccine passports EXTERNAL Hello! I’m emailing to register my opposition to vaccine passports! Don’t ruin our community with fascist mandates and policies. It’s a known fact that the cv vaccine does not stop on individual from transmitting the virus to others, nor does it lessen the severity of illness. Is the city receiving federal dollars to carry this out? Just like the schools? So much corruption. Database on all things related to CV19. Get up to speed and save our community! https://lcaction.org/vaccine Sincerely Elise Lininger Item 13.G 01/11/21 245 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4397 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:57 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: From: DONNA PEARMAN <pearmandonna49@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:56 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL Have you asked the resturaunts what they think.The don't gain anything by complying.Less people go in.Its violation of people's rights.Its more work for employees. Item 13.G 01/11/21 246 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4398 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO to Vax Passport From: aki sasagawa <akisasagawa124@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:27 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; aki sasagawa <akisasagawa124@gmail.com> Subject: NO to Vax Passport EXTERNAL Hello, Simply, I do NOT agree or support Vaccine Passport. Warmly, aki Energy Healer 424‐346‐4466 aki Energy Healer Certified Hypnotherapist HEAL & HEALED Healing is your birthright 424-387-9011 aki@energyhealeraki.com energyhealeraki.com PO Box 1044, Torrance, CA 90505 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ‐ UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION IS PROHIBITED BY FEDERAL LAW. [Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701‐ 2702] The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. Item 13.G 01/11/21 247 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4399 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Tullin Valdez <valdezer@cebridge.net> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:31 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine passport EXTERNAL I am writing to oppose the concept of a vaccine passport. It’s Un‐American and discrimination at its core. Nobody should be require to show their papers to participate in society. This concept is a slippery slope. Where will this stop? When will it end? Everyone deserves equal and fair access to all things in our society. To mandate or legislate a system that codified segregation and discrimination has no place anywhere in this great country. Please refrain from applying this concept in any form. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Thank you Tullin Valdez Item 13.G 01/11/21 248 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4400 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine passport From: Mark Elliot <melliotmark@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:34 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine passport EXTERNAL Dear Council person, I Mark Elliot am opposed to a Vaccine passport for the city of Santa Monica. This is a very bad idea and I urge you not to support it. Thanks for your time. Mark Item 13.G 01/11/21 249 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4401 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:00 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Opposing the SM-Vaccine Passport From: Nazra Peterson <nazrapeterson@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:35 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Opposing the SM‐Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL To Whom it Concerns: I do *NOT* support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. My arguments against the SM‐V Passport are as follows: This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The vaccine and Vaccine Passport does *not* slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. Myself and others have experienced adverse effects of this mandate, as well as previous flu shots throughout the course of mine and my families lives. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA and the Nuremberg Codes. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second‐class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Regards Item 13.G 01/11/21 250 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4402 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Nazra Peterson Item 13.G 01/11/21 251 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4403 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Heather Faye <heatherbfaye@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:36 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL To whom it may concern, I do not support the vaccine mandate!! Especially since the vaccine Does not prevent transmission or stop one from getting COVID‐19!! Heather Faye Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 252 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4404 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vac passport From: ROVdrone Pilot in training <rovdrone@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:40 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vac passport EXTERNAL Oppose vac passport The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. ROVDrone@yahoo.com : Remote Operated Vehicles /Drone Item 13.G 01/11/21 253 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4405 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 8 Item 13.G 01/11/21 254 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4406 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 9 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please Oppose Vaccine Passsports From: sdegerer <sdegerer@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:49 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please Oppose Vaccine Passsports EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council, I am writing in opposition to ANY measures to "show papers" and "proof" of vaccination status in the city of LA. Requiring citizens to display their private medical records to merit access to goods and services will result in a two-tiered social system. A society of haves and have nots, or, more specifically, those who have liberty without access or those who have access without liberty. Vaccine verification violates Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation SEC. 202: “All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.” The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect the people from inhumane and unjust acts being committed against them by their government. It is our duty to maintain those same standards of protocol in our local government. As requiring vaccination verification is prohibited by federal and state laws, then it stands to reason that it should not be permitted by our cities. To deny one access to education, goods and services if individuals do not display vaccination verification amounts to coercion and results in segregation. The SARS-COV-2 virus has rattled us all, but we must not barter our liberties to assuage our fears. Such shortsighted actions made in haste are far harder to unravel than if their consequences were initially weighed rationally and with respect to legal and historical precedence in addition to common decency and fairness. Sincerely, Sara Semmes Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 255 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4407 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 10 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No vaccine passport From: Gwendoline pere‐lahaille <gwendoline.perelahaille@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:50 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No vaccine passport EXTERNAL I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica. Sincerely, Gwendoline Pere-Lahaille Item 13.G 01/11/21 256 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4408 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 11 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 1:59 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vote no for city vaccine mandates From: sister Rose tulacz <notredamecreations@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:51 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vote no for city vaccine mandates EXTERNAL SM-V Passport. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Item 13.G 01/11/21 257 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4409 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 12 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry. Mary C. Tulacz Item 13.G 01/11/21 258 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4410 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Michelle Johnston <johnston93004@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:20 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Passport EXTERNAL Dear Council Member, I am very concerned about your current vaccine passport being considered. This is absolutely discriminatory and unjustified. Those who are vaccinated are just as capable of spreading Covid‐19 as those that are unvaxed. There are also people who have had the virus and thus they are not carriers but are unvaxed for that reason as well. This will cause more harm than good. I currently will not frequent any establishment in Los Angeles that is requiring any sort of vaccine passport. You will end up losing patrons and tourists that will boycott your city. Please do the right thing. If you follow the actual science then you will see how unjustified this is. It is unconstitutional and wrong. Sincerely, Mrs. Johnston Concerned Citizen Educator Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 259 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4411 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport? ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: ctrarcht@nccn.net <ctrarcht@nccn.net> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:17 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport? EXTERNAL I want to tell you that I certainly don't support instituting the recently proposed COVID vaccine mandate in Santa Monica ‐‐ especially when the so‐called "Vaccines" are so ineffective at stopping transmission. David Adams,Ph.D. Item 13.G 01/11/21 260 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4412 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport From: Lawrence Green <lg1369@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:23 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council, As a long time Santa Monica resident, I strongly oppose the proposed VACCINE PASSPORT. To restrict services to anyone over personal medical choices is outrageous and likely grossly illegal. To coerce anyone into taking any drug is immoral. Santa Monica used to be a haven for those that seek an alternative healthy lifestyle. People often chose homeopathic, eastern or alternative medical choices. Yoga studios everywhere. Vegan & Vegetarian restaurants. We went to the Coop & the Farmers Market to get our ORGANIC veggies. Many in Santa Monica still believe that a healthy lifestyle is likely better medicine than the Western Medicine/pharmaceutical choice. Non‐vaccinated people are not sick people. In fact non‐vaccinated who have had the virus likely have a better & long lasting immunity. So why is the city proposing restricting healthy people from participating in society? It doesn’t make sense. If people feel safer getting a vaccine, they have that choice. Assuming the vaccines work, then they shouldn’t fear any person, vaccinated or not. Please do the right thing – NO VACCINE PASSPORT. Lawrence Green Santa Monica, CA 90402 Item 13.G 01/11/21 261 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4413 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine passports From: jim bender <spendstoomuch@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:24 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine passports EXTERNAL I just wanted to let you know that I am not in agreement with vaccine passports. It is illegal and discriminatory. Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android Item 13.G 01/11/21 262 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4414 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I am a resident in Santa Minica and I oppose any vaccine mandate. From: LaVonne Col <lavonneh@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:27 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: LaVonne Col <lavonneh@hotmail.com> Subject: I am a resident in Santa Minica and I oppose any vaccine mandate. EXTERNAL It is government over‐ reach. As a Healthcare Registered Nurse, I strongly feel that medical issues should be between a patient and their doctor. Do you realize what financial impact this can have on your income from the puer??? I oppose this. Pls vote against it. Sincerely, LaVonne Collette Item 13.G 01/11/21 263 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4415 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport From: Ingrid Thompson <itskincare@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:17 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Item 13.G 01/11/21 264 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4416 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 2 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Kind Regards, Ingrid Thompson Item 13.G 01/11/21 265 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4417 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 3 Vernice Hankins From:Shevi Baruch <shevi30@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Public comments EXTERNAL I am A resident of Santa Monica, and own a business in Santa Monica. Both over 12 years. I am not in support of the vaccine passport. I ask you, the city council member which I voted for each and every one of you, to vote No on this passport. It is unconstitutional to ask for medical Status! Shevi Baruch Committed to your well being, Shevi Baruch , GYROKINESIS® Master Trainer Item 13.G 01/11/21 266 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4418 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 4 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:01 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose Vaccine PAssport From: Tracee Gluhaich <tracee@highenergygirl.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Oppose Vaccine PAssport EXTERNAL The fact that the Santa Monica City Council is proposing a vaccine mandate is absurd. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. How about teaching people to boost their immune system instead? Exercise, Sleep, Drink Water, De-Stress, Supplements (Vit D, zinc, quercetin, and Vit C at a minimum) Nobody talks about prevention of all disease. Do not support this absurdity. In health, Tracee Gluhaich Have you joined my cool Facebook Group? Item 13.G 01/11/21 267 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4419 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 5 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:02 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No to vaccine passports! They are unethical! No segregation! ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Susan Andaloro <keleomana@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:10 PM Subject: No to vaccine passports! They are unethical! No segregation! EXTERNAL Dear folks, The adverse reactions with these vaccines are horrific. To make ppl get them and prove it with these evil passports is a crime against humanity. Pls be on the ride side of history, as the lawsuits are piling up on this issue. Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 268 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4420 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 6 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:02 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please vote NO on Vaccine Passport ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Nicholas Young <nicholastesauroyoung@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:14 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please vote NO on Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear Mr. White and whom it may concern, I am writing to urge you to please vote no on the vaccine passport tomorrow. The passport system would be a massive overreach of governmental power; the vaccines are shown to be only marginally effective and would thus give a false sense of security; and would lead to countless lawsuits in coming years as side effects become manifest in those who would vaccinate as a result of this policy. Thank you, Nicholas Young Item 13.G 01/11/21 269 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4421 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 7 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:02 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport! From: Jim Robertson <j3rbrts@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:14 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport! EXTERNAL Stop acting like DICTATORS!! Drop this insane vaccine passport agenda, or be voted OUT OF OFFICE in a hurry! Stop standing for Big Pharma and friends and start standing for the people! Jim Email: jimrobertson@aboriginalskills.com Website: www.aboriginalskills.com Phone: (310)395‐0943 Item 13.G 01/11/21 270 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4422 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 8 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passports! From: Cole Turner <cmfturner@sonic.net> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:14 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passports! EXTERNAL NO VACCINE PASSPORTS; No Medical Coercion! No Mandates! This is an over‐reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. Vaccine mandates are a violation of the U.S. Constitution and of the Nuremberg Code! WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT if you take this course of action! ‐‐ In gratitude, Cole Item 13.G 01/11/21 271 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4423 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:19 PM From: Aya Pi <aya314@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport EXTERNAL Hello David White, As global data continues to flood in regarding current hospitalizations and cases in the fully- vaccinated overwhelming the numbers of unvaccinated on both metrics, this is a foolhardy enactment of segregation which would very negatively affect Santa Monica businesses and communities. In addition, the potential fir vaccine injuries, both long and short term, can no longer be ignored. As was published in the Lancet recently, there is no medical or health policy justification to continue with bulk vaccination, not segregation of those who wish not to inoculate themselves with the current vaccine options. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext “ This proportion is increasing week by week and was 58.9 percent on 27. October 2021 (Figure 1) providing clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission. A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100,160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89,821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7 percent), 3395 among the unvaccinated (3.4 percent) [[3]]. https://principia-scientific.com/lancet-89-of-new-uk-covid- cases-among-fully-vaxxed/ Additionally, this policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private Item 13.G 01/11/21 272 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4424 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. I urge you to do the right thing for the overall health and well-being of our community, and dismiss this legislation which clearly, as is currently being seen in Israel, creating immune-erosion caused by vaccination, augmenting illness, sickness and death in individuals needlessly against a much- weakened variant, and will decimate struggling businesses. Unite, don’t segregate when the efficacy of vaccination is increasingly shown to be dubious and unjustified from a medical standpoint. Thank you. Warmly, Aya Item 13.G 01/11/21 273 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4425 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:19 PM From: Aya Pi <aya314@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport EXTERNAL Hello David White, As global data continues to flood in regarding current hospitalizations and cases in the fully- vaccinated overwhelming the numbers of unvaccinated on both metrics, this is a foolhardy enactment of segregation which would very negatively affect Santa Monica businesses and communities. In addition, the potential fir vaccine injuries, both long and short term, can no longer be ignored. As was published in the Lancet recently, there is no medical or health policy justification to continue with bulk vaccination, not segregation of those who wish not to inoculate themselves with the current vaccine options. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext “ This proportion is increasing week by week and was 58.9 percent on 27. October 2021 (Figure 1) providing clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission. A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100,160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89,821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7 percent), 3395 among the unvaccinated (3.4 percent) [[3]]. https://principia-scientific.com/lancet-89-of-new-uk-covid- cases-among-fully-vaxxed/ Additionally, this policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private Item 13.G 01/11/21 274 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4426 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. I urge you to do the right thing for the overall health and well-being of our community, and dismiss this legislation which clearly, as is currently being seen in Israel, creating immune-erosion caused by vaccination, augmenting illness, sickness and death in individuals needlessly against a much- weakened variant, and will decimate struggling businesses. Unite, don’t segregate when the efficacy of vaccination is increasingly shown to be dubious and unjustified from a medical standpoint. Thank you. Warmly, Aya Item 13.G 01/11/21 275 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4427 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:39 PM From: lisa klein <momofboysthree3@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:06 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL I do not support enacting a vaccine passport in Santa Monica. Lisa Klein, M.S., CCC-SLP, COM™ Recognized by Apraxia Kids for Advanced Training and Expertise in Childhood Apraxia of Speech Certified Orofacial Myologist PROMPT trained level II bridging Autism, Down Syndrome Aphasia, Traumatic brain injury, Dysphagia (310) 739-9337 Lisakleinspeech.com DISCLAIMER PERSONAL, PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL The information in this email, and any attached files, is private, privileged and/or confidential. It is intended only for the use of the persons named. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. Kindly delete this message and notify the sender via reply e-mail as soon as possible. Any misdirection or other error in the transmission of this information is not and shall not be considered a waiver of any applicable privileges. Item 13.G 01/11/21 276 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4428 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: STRONGLY OPPOSE Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:27 PM From: Angel Hagalez <angelhagalez@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSE EXTERNAL To all council members: I STRONGLY OPPOSE this policy that creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPAA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose of “incentivizing and forcing” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Item 13.G 01/11/21 277 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4429 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery, and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing residents’ medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. I STRONGLY OPPOSE any notion of any vaccine passports and URGE YOU to uphold the legal and constitutional obligations you have to our City's citizens. REspectfully, Angel Hagalez Item 13.G 01/11/21 278 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4430 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: passport on agenda Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:57 PM From: Shirley Vernale <svernale@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:00 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: passport on agenda EXTERNAL To everyone in the Santa Monica City Council, I DO NOT support a vaxsean passport at all ever. I worked for this wonderful city for 20 years serving the community to all persons regardless of race, creed, gender and social status at the Santa Monica Public Library. As you know by now, the vaxsean does not stop transmission of a this cold virus. The passport is only a way to take away the freedoms of persons visiting and living in Santa Monica, it is not for our health care. Please vote to keep us free from this intrusion into our own health care, and do not start discriminating. Please vote NO. Thank you Shirley Vernale Item 13.G 01/11/21 279 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4431 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:47 PM From: Barbara Thurman <barbarabthurman1@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I do not support the vaccine passport It goes against our constitutional rights and personal health privacy. You are over stepping your bounds. NO VACCINE PASSPORT Item 13.G 01/11/21 280 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4432 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please do not allow a vaccine passport to be instituted Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:06 PM -----Original Message----- From: Lauren Over <redturquois8@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:55 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Please do not allow a vaccine passport to be instituted EXTERNAL Dear David White and City Council, I am a Santa Monica resident of 7 years and a city of Santa Monica employee in the Cultural Affairs department. I’m grateful for your consideration of my views on the matter of a vaccine passport. I am not anti-vaccine, but I strongly feel the mandate of any medical intervention violates our basic human rights and constitutional rights. Please trust the people to make up their own hearts and minds regarding this most important matter. Here are some further reasons not to go in this direction: “This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. “ Thank you again for your service and guidance, Lauren B. Over Item 13.G 01/11/21 281 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4433 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Item 13.G 01/11/21 282 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4434 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO Vaccine Passports! Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:13 PM -----Original Message----- From: lance dreiss <lancedreiss@att.net> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:00 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO Vaccine Passports! EXTERNAL Sent from my iPad Item 13.G 01/11/21 283 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4435 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Opposes arbitrary vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:21 PM -----Original Message----- From: Lynz Pela <lynzpela@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:04 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Opposes arbitrary vaccine passports EXTERNAL I was surprised one year ago when such measures were being discussed. Today, I find it completely baffling. There is an abundance of evidence that vaccines do not stop the spread of Covid-19. This winter we have seen Navy and cruise ships that host 100% fully vaccinated crews and passengers endure break-through outbreaks. Numerous fully vaccinated persons, even boostered, are contracting and transmitting Covid-19. Vaccinated individuals are not safe people to be around. They are as likely, and some studies suggest because of their higher viral loads are more likely, to spread the virus as the unvaccinated. Is the point of vaccine passports simply to punish individuals who don’t conform to the status quo? Is that the kind of city Santa Monica aims to be? A city that completely disregards science, data, research and completely public, unarguable evidence that vaccines do not stop or slow the spread of Covid—19? That is such a disappointment. Please consider ALL the evidence very carefully and make an I formed and logical decision for the people who trusted you and gave you the opportunity to represent them. Sincerely, Lindsay Pelascini Item 13.G 01/11/21 284 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4436 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose city vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:05:57 PM -----Original Message----- From: Gloria Neria <momyglo@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:49 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Oppose city vaccine passports EXTERNAL I oppose this measure and the city WILL lose a lot of money. This will discriminate and is a horrible for businesses and the community! Thank you, Gloria Neria Item 13.G 01/11/21 285 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4437 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No vaccine passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:05:50 PM -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Hammers <catkite22@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:53 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No vaccine passport EXTERNAL I’m not in favor of any vaccine passport in Santa Monica. Sincerely, Catherine Hammers Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 286 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4438 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: time for stronger covid controls Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:05:09 PM Attachments:Screen Shot 2022-01-11 at 1.52.15 PM.png From: Diana Williams <williams.diana@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; brd@smmusd.org Subject: time for stronger covid controls EXTERNAL Dear Councilmembers and School Board Members, [this has been sitting in my draft folder since January 6...I'm glad I saw today's SMDP article about tonight's Council Meeting Agenda so that I could be reminded to finish it.] In the summer of 2019 we moved from Los Feliz to Santa Monica, buying a house near Douglas Park. We've been very happy, all things considered, but I'm finding the city's covid guidelines to be an embarrassment. I have been SCANDALIZED by the fact that the city has yet to implement an indoor vaccine mandate as the city of Los Angeles has done. Currently, Santa Monica is effectively holding itself out as a haven for anti-vaxxers. I was reminded of Santa Monica's weak approach to Covid when my daughter was recently invited to a private screening of Encanto at the Laemmle Santa Monica. Investigating the covid protocols of the theater, I was disappointed to see the following: Item 13.G 01/11/21 287 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4439 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Needless to say, we did not feel comfortable attending the event. We have not entered a Santa Monica business other than the doctor and dentist office since March 2020 and I doubt we will do so any time soon unless the city institutes tighter controls. It is also a scandal that SMMUSD reopened schools without first requiring/offering negative PCR tests. We moved in part to be closer to Mirman, my 9 year old daughter's current elementary school. But coming from a family of public school educators and as a proud graduate of (midwestern) public schools myself, I have very much wanted her to have the option of switching to SMMUSD. But the SMMUSD's flaccid covid policies (compared with both Mirman AND LAUSD) are giving me serious pause. Mirman held an outdoor PCR testing clinic 2 days before the start of school and required all students/faculty/staff to obtain a negative PCR test within 36 hours of the start of school. They have instituted a covid vaccine mandate for all students 5+ and a booster mandate for all adults who enter the campus, along with indoor and outdoor KN95 mask mandate. I want very much to support the local public schools and recognize that it's a privilege to be able to afford to send my child to a private school, but all other things being equal, there is simply no comparison when it comes to covid safety. If LAUSD can do it, SMMUSD certainly should. Sincerely, Diana Williams Item 13.G 01/11/21 288 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4440 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: OPPOSE Council"s PROPOSAL Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:49 PM From: Arantxa Lopez <drarantxalopez@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: OPPOSE Council's PROPOSAL EXTERNAL I am writing to express my opposition to The Santa Monica City Council proposal to institute VACCINE PASSPORTS.  This is an over-reach of our local government into our private health information and a violation of our Constitutional rights. Vaccine Passports do not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus. Fully vaccinated and boosted individuals can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Have you not noticed all the businesses and hospitals that are unstaffed because their vaccinated workers are down with COVID? Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing down the transmission is NOT based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated by creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Vaccines do cause injuries and, like any other medication or treatment, carry risks. As such, it should be up to each individual to weigh the risks and benefits of any treatment. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. I write to you as someone who has been vaccine injured personally and who have witnessed serious vaccine injury and death in my personal and professional life as a health care provider. Vaccine Passports create division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that Item 13.G 01/11/21 289 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4441 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. This is like going back to the segregated south where blacks had to drink from separate fountains and move to the back of the bus. I have recently heard Holocaust survivors describing how the Holocaust started in this very manner, with Jews being denied access to certain places or only allowed to buy groceries at certain times. Please reconsider your proposal and stand up for equality and actual science. Arantxa Lopez Item 13.G 01/11/21 290 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4442 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No to 13g Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:36 PM From: jzhawk13 <jzhawk13@protonmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:02 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: No to 13g EXTERNAL I do not agree with vaccine passports. 1st of all the vaccine has to work for the person using it. The vaccine does not stop transmission, it does not stop a person from getting it, and a vaccinated person has the same viral load as unvaccinated. This information is from the CDC. Why would we want to segregate and discriminate here in this town. Other States are living their lives and for some reason Santa Monica wants to control people's lives. This is called totalitarian. What is the purpose of this....control? This virus has a 99.99 percent survival rate. Why does does our government feel like they want to the control the people? we just want to live our lives and stop this government overreach Jill Hawkins SM Item 13.G 01/11/21 291 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4443 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: vaccine passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:04:30 PM From: Bonnie Johnstone <bonniejohnstone789@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:03 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David.White@santamonica.gov.net Subject: vaccine passport EXTERNAL Hello, I am concerned about health & safety However a vaccine passport presents potential for many unhappy problems such as : Discrimination, Isolation, Denial of needed services; Violation of civil rights, Waste of money & time for enforcement for the city , businesses-taking away from the jobs they need to perform. Please, No vote on vaccine passport! Thank you. Sincerely, Bonnie Johnstonew Item 13.G 01/11/21 292 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4444 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccines in Santa Monica Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:58 PM From: diana hinek <diana.hinek@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 5:49 PM To: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccines in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council, Please do not enact vaccines mandates in our city. First of all it is time that you all recognize that vaccines do not stop the spread. We are all getting this new variant and this pandemic is now becoming endemic like it is the flu. Second of all, the pandemic has already destroyed our businesses. Have you had a look at the Promenade lately? Main Street? Have you had a look at the fast dropping numbers of enrollments in our schools? Forcing people to do something has NEVER served anyone for their own good. Please have a look at your history books and consider choosing the right side of history. You will be remembered for this decision for years to come. Sincerely, Diana Hinek - Santa Monica resident for 15 years- Santa Monica property owner- business owner and mother of 4 -- Birth Doula and Photographer www.dearbirth.com www.facebook.com/dearbirth https://www.instagram.com/dearbirth Item 13.G 01/11/21 293 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4445 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:50 PM From: Karen Bloomfield <kbloomfield@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:29 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Santa Monica Council, I am a registered nurse and a 10-year resident of Santa Monica. I strongly oppose a vaccine passport mandate in our city. A vaccine passport is government overreach and a violation of our constitutional rights. Please do not support a mandate for this useless “vaccine.” Thanks, Karen Bloomfield Item 13.G 01/11/21 294 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4446 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:34 PM -----Original Message----- From: Melissa Ward <melissa@mwardonline.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:39 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I’m writing to oppose this idea. It’s ridiculous to divide the community this way. It’s becoming clear that whether vaxed or unvaxed, all are vulnerable to contracting this virus. See the CDC guidelines that state “whether vaccinated or not”. The vaccines don’t stop transmission. M. Ward Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 295 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4447 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: say "NO" to vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:25 PM From: Dave S <dschlute@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:43 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: say "NO" to vaccine passports EXTERNAL Vaccine passports will only create a 2-tier society, and will crumble the social and economic backbone of the entire Southern California and Santa Monica community. Nothing good can come from Vaccine Passports, especially since the survival rate for the Omicron variant is 100%, and the survival rate for Covid in general is close to 99.9% for most age groups. Vaccine passports do not make any sense. Potential multiple lawsuits can and will most likely be filed against the businesses who will in turn be forced to comply with the Vaccine Passports. Please vote "NO" to Vaccine Passports!! David Item 13.G 01/11/21 296 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4448 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:15 PM -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Hammers <catkite22@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:52 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No vaccine passports EXTERNAL I’m not in favor of any vaccine passport in Santa Monica. Sincerely, Catherine Hammers Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 297 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4449 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: opposing vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:06:06 PM From: Kathleen Lilley <kathleenlilly@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 6:51 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: opposing vaccine passports EXTERNAL Hello! I am writing to oppose vaccine passports. I'm not really sure why they are being considered in the first place...does anyone really want to live in this world that you're trying to create? Do you really think you'll be exempt from them in the near or long term? What's next...proof of 20 shots to buy food? I mean come on. I am sure you are fooling some but not most people. We're all sick of it. Please stop the nonsense. Thank you, Kathleen Lilly Item 13.G 01/11/21 298 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4450 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council MailboxTo:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Issues with Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:07:51 PM -----Original Message-----From: Dicki Fliszar <dickif@gmail.com>Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 4:57 PMTo: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>Subject: Issues with Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear council members, The proposed vaccine passport policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services oraccessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy.2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy,which is a violation of HIPA.3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. Bycreating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to makeanybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing.1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety.2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport andpotentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents basedon a medical procedure. Thank you, Dicki Fliszarhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.dickifliszar.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!8STBM2STg3z4UUuqDZt8iPORchpg5wLJdcZjK7K2pCjieinMhYulZOBhOO6ZLmY$https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.privatemusiclessonsla.com__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!8STBM2STg3z4UUuqDZt8iPORchpg5wLJdcZjK7K2pCjieinMhYulZOBhgeK6rOw$ Item 13.G 01/11/21 299 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4451 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: city Council Meeting 1/11/22, item 13 G. Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:07:11 PM From: sally <sjmaslon@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 3:07 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: city Council Meeting 1/11/22, item 13 G. EXTERNAL Hello, I am opposed to the city of Santa Monica requiring Covid- 19 vaccine mandates for entering city establishments. People who have take the Covid- 19 vaccine still get and transmit this virus. In addition , there are side effects to these vaccines and both the long term and short term safely profiles are unknown. Please vote no on 13G. I have been a resident of Santa Monica in the past for many years. I now live in Los Angeles, but I frequent Santa Monica businesses often. Thank you, Sally Maslon Los Angeles Item 13.G 01/11/21 300 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4452 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) January 10, 2022 Dear Santa Monica City Council Members, It’s come to our attention that you’re reconsidering the city’s stance on requiring proof of full- vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test taken within 72 hours for indoor dining and frequenting other areas of business. We’d love to take a moment to share our thoughts as one of the largest, independent restaurant groups in Santa Monica. As mentioned in correspondence from myself and our Director of Communications Elise Freimuth back in October to City Council, our group has been requiring this of guests since August 2021 when the Delta variant was beginning to emerge and local COVID-19 cases were rising. We implemented a mandatory vaccination policy for our employees in March 2021, so eventually requiring it for guests when dining indoors made the most sense for our business and helped us better ensure everyone’s safety in an environment where people are eating and removing masks. While we’ve had our share of detractors and upset customers, they’ve been in the minority. The response to our policy has been overwhelmingly positive, especially now with the Omricon variant spreading so quickly. Plus, we allow for reasonable accommodations with outdoor dining and takeout for anyone who isn’t vaccinated. Guests feel more comfortable dining at our restaurants and our employees feel a lot safer working in them, especially after nearly two years of putting themselves on the frontlines to feed others. Considering the cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood and Culver City have a vaccination/testing policy for indoor dining, it’s extremely confusing for locals and visitors to know that once they cross into neighboring Santa Monica, there are entirely different guidelines to follow. By now, people are used to showing proof of vaccination or regularly getting tested when traveling, going to a concert or sporting event, dining in a restaurant and more. Santa Monica has always been the first to lead in LA County when it comes to the health and well- being of its citizens, whether it was by implementing a ban on plastic bags and plastic straws, zero emissions initiatives or raising the minimum wage. Now is the time for the City of Santa Monica to align with Los Angeles, ensure everyone’s health and support business owners like us who, are trying to survive amidst an ongoing pandemic. Warm regards, Joel Dixon President, Rustic Canyon Family Item 13.G 01/11/21 301 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4453 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Mandates Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:09:13 PM From: Megen Metzger <42emailmrm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 9:44 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Mandates EXTERNAL Santa Monica Council members, I am writing to you in support of the implementation of proof of vaccine mandate for restaurants, spas, bars, etc. that mirror those of Los Angeles. I have been to many businesses in LA and had no problem with entry and it appeared to be a minimum effort for the businesses. I have recently asked some of the local restaurants about their policies and they shared that they would appreciate your implementing this kind of regulation. I think this is a great way to minimize health risks and keep our businesses open and thriving. Thank you -- Megen Rubin Metzger Item 13.G 01/11/21 302 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4454 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) PARENTS AND PATIENTS What Works to Increase Vaccination Uptake Noel T. Brewer, PhD From the Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC The author has no conﬂicts of interest to disclose. Address correspondence to Noel T. Brewer, PhD, Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina, 325 Rosenau Hall CB7440, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (e-mail:ntb@unc.edu). Received for publication April 27, 2020; accepted January 29, 2021. TAGGEDPABSTRACT Behavioral science offers several ideas about what it takes to get people to vaccinate. Colleagues and I previously reviewed the evidence for these propositions and put forward what has become known as the Increasing Vaccination Model. To make the model more accessible to practitioners, the current paper summarizes the main insights from the earlier work. First, observational studies show clearly that thoughts and feelings are correlated with vaccine uptake. Such constructs include perceived risk of harm from infectious disease and conﬁdence in vaccine safety and efﬁcacy. However, interventions have not generally shown that changing thoughts and feelings increases vaccine uptake. Second, social processes are promis- ing in observational studies. Such constructs include social norms, altruism, and sharing through social media. More research is needed in this promising area before it will be pos- sible to conclude whether social processes are effective inter- vention targets. Third, interventions that directly change behavior—without trying to change what people think or feel or their social experience—are reliably effective ways to increase vaccine uptake. Such interventions include reminders, defaults, and vaccine requirements. Finally, the most potent intervention for increasing vaccine uptake is a health care provider recommendation, but it is still unclear whether such recommendations are effective because they increase conﬁdence, set a social norm, or reﬂect a direct behavior change technique. The paper ends by describing use of the model by a World Health Organization working group as it considers opportunities to address low vaccina- tion uptake globally. TAGGEDPKEYWORDS:nudges; social networks; vaccination; vaccine conﬁdence ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS 2021;21:S9-S16 TAGGEDPWHAT THIS NARRATIVE Review Adds Our previous review on increasing vaccine uptake has been widely used, but its complexity has hindered its use by some practitioners. This brief and accessible article will allow people to more readily understand the key ﬁndings. BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE OFFERS several ideas about what it takes to get people to vaccinate. The 3 main propositions are that vaccination results from: 1) what people think and feel; 2) social processes; and 3) direct behavior change (Fig. 1). Colleagues and I previously reviewed the evi- dence for these propositions and put forward what has become known as the Increasing Vaccination Model. 1 That paper generated substantial interest from public health organizations, including the World Health Organi- zation (WHO) and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, vaccine manufacturers, researchers, and practitioners. However, its length and complexity have been barriers to the model’s use by some practitioners. To facilitate wider adoption of the model, this paper summa- rizes the main insights from the earlier work and describes use of the model by a WHO working group as it considers opportunities to address low vaccination uptake globally, especially through effective interventions. Vaccination is one of the most widely accepted health behaviors. Globally, 86% of children have received a measles vaccine, and that percentage is higher in North America and Europe as of 2018. 2 Coverage is even higher for the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine. These high rates have caused the incidence of many infectious diseases to plummet in the decades since relevant vaccines have been introduced. Such successes have led to calls for complete eradication of polio and regional elimination or control of other diseases through vaccina- tion. Indeed, at the start of this decade, WHO and other organizations designated 2011-20 as the Decade of Vaccines. However, by 2019, WHO had declared vaccination hes- itancy to be one of the top 10 threats to global public health.2 This threat could have several consequences. Inadequate coverage is the uptake of vaccination that fails to meet an agreed-on quality marker (eg, 90% coverage). While global vaccination coverage rates have steadily drifted upward, they have stalled in some regions and ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Copyright ©2021 by Academic Pediatric Association S9 Volume 21, Number 4S May-June 2021 Item 13.G 01/11/21 303 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4455 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) even slipped backward in a few countries.Delay is getting vaccines after the recommended age or spreading the doses out over time. Despite clear ﬁndings that the current vaccination schedule is safe, parents are increasingly choosing to spread out or delay vaccines in the mistaken belief that having fewer vaccines at one time will reduce the risk of harm.Instability is variability in coverage over time, most often a sharp drop. Some countries with gener- ally high vaccination coverage have experienced periods of dramatic instability. For example, Japan had achieved 70% coverage for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccina- tion, yet coverage fell to 7% within a year of an unsub- stantiated safety scare. Denmark had a similar issue that it was able to turn around, but only after coverage had fallen by half. 3 The model is about what works to increase vaccination uptake, which results from a series of behaviors by vari- ous actors. The family may talk about vaccines with friends, search for information online, schedule an appointment, travel to a clinic, consent to vaccination, return for any needed follow-up doses, and pay any related costs, such as an administration fee or travel expenses. Providers stock vaccines, recommend them, track their use in medical records, ﬂag who is due and overdue, and manage their vaccine stock. All of this is in a context of a system in which the state funds some vacci- nations and, in some countries, private insurance covers other vaccinations. In sum, vaccination uptake results from a web of interconnected players, resources, and behaviors, all of which follow predictable patterns. TAGGEDH1WHAT PEOPLE THINK AND FEEL The model’s ﬁrst broad proposition is that what people think and feel motivates vaccination uptake (Fig. 2). On the left side of the ﬁgure,disease risk appraisals are thoughts and feelings about potential health problems caused by infectious agents (perceived risk and fear);vac- cine conﬁdence is the attitude that vaccines are good (effective) or bad (unsafe). Risk appraisals and conﬁdence motivate people to vaccinate or not to do so, as shown in the middle. Another term for low motivation to vaccinate What people think and feel Risk appraisals Confidence Motivation, hesitancy Vaccination uptake Scheduling appointment Consent Delay Refusal Social processes Social norms Social networks Altruism Direct behavior change Building on existing motivation Shaping behavior Figure 1.The Increasing Vaccination Model. 1 Disease risk appraisal Motivation (or hesitancy) Vaccine confidence Vaccination uptake (or refusal, delay) Figure 2.What people think and feel. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science. TAGGEDENDS10 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Item 13.G 01/11/21 304 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4456 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) is hesitancy. While some people use the terms conﬁdence and hesitancy interchangeably, it is helpful to separate these ideas: low conﬁdence is a cause of low motivation to vaccinate in the model and indeed in research going back 50 years. 4 Finally, motivation to vaccinate leads to vaccination uptake, shown in the right. Getting vaccinated can lower some appraisals of disease risk and increase vaccine conﬁdence, as shown by the arrows going from the far right back to the left. 5 Findings from observational studies support the thoughts and feelings proposition. Vaccine uptake is asso- ciated with higher disease risk appraisals including think- ing infectious diseases are likely, serious, and regrettable.6,7 Similarly, vaccine uptake is associated with higher vaccine conﬁdence, as shown by believing that vaccines are important, save lives, and have few side effects. Finally, motivation to vaccinate, also called inten- tion, is one of the strongest predictors of health behaviors, including vaccine uptake. 8 However, experimental evidence from randomized tri- als generally does not support the thoughts and feelings proposition. This stronger body of evidence better answers the question of whether interventions focused on thoughts and feelings can increase vaccine uptake. Risk communication interventions did not appreciably increase vaccine uptake, according to a recent meta-analysis of 16 studies, although the interventions somewhat increased the belief that infectious diseases are likely. 9 An older meta-analysis, restricted to 5 risk communication inter- ventions that increased risk appraisals, did ﬁnd increases in vaccine uptake. 10 Similarly, interventions to boost vaccine conﬁdence have generally not increased uptake, and none have shown that increased conﬁdence explains the interventions’ impact. While some intervention studies have increased vaccine conﬁdence, including beliefs that vaccines are safe and effective, 11,12 others have not. 13 Finally, interventions to increase motivation to vac- cinate have not shown reliably that they can inﬂuence hesitant people, despite success at increasing motiva- tion for other behaviors. 14 Decision aids have little support in increasing vaccine uptake. Motivational inter- viewing, while promising, has yet to be shown effective in a randomized trial, although it has been included as one component of several effective multicomponent interven- tions15 and has shown promise in quasiexperimental studies.16 In sum, while thoughts and feelings motivate people to get vaccinated, interventions targeting thoughts and feel- ings have shown little promise for reliably increasing vac- cine uptake. Furthermore, there is no apparent logic as to when interventions boost vaccine risk appraisals and con- ﬁdence, have no effect, or even have pernicious effects. I return later to the question of whether thoughts and feel- ings interventions might generate support for vaccination policies and programs, an important outcome that is dis- tinct from vaccination uptake. TAGGEDH1SOCIAL PROCESSES The model’s second broad proposition is that social processes motivate vaccine uptake (Fig. 3). The social network, the collection of connections among people is shown in the left side of the ﬁgure. These networks have the characteristic of similarity or homophily—birds of a feather ﬂock together. Social networks exert inﬂuence through contagion, that is, through the spread of ideas and behaviors. This spread, shown in the middle, establishes social norms, what most people do and or expect others to do, along with social preferences (altruism, vaccinating to protect others, and free riding, not vaccinating because others already have). Finally, social norms and preferen- ces about vaccination lead to vaccination uptake,as shown in the right. Findings from observational studies reliably support the social processes proposition. Social networks are well characterized and show robust clustering of people with similar ideas about vaccination in social spaces. 17 Social norms are reliably associated with vaccine uptake, 18 with somewhat less evidence showing smaller associations for social preferences. Behavioral scientists have generated substantial and convincing experimental evidence on these questions in the context of vaccination, but almost all of it has nonbehavioral outcomes. No published randomized trials to date have established that social process interventions increase vaccine uptake, Contagion Vaccination uptake (or refusal, delay) Social preferences Altruism Free-riding Social network Homophily Social space Person’s mind Social norms Figure 3.Social processes. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science. TAGGEDENDACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S11Item 13.G 01/11/21 305 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4457 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) but this is a very promising area for future research. Some quasiexperimental studies suggest that social processes show potential, and several currently unpublished studies may soon ﬁll this gap. Research on other health behaviors suggests why social process interventions may succeed where thoughts and feelings interventions fail. The “one communicator and one receiver” model of education is the way to change what people know. However, to change what people do, information must come from multiple people in the per- son’s social network. 19,20 Such social processes are espe- cially pertinent in an era deﬁned by social media, antivaccine activists, and misinformation. Stories that go viral evoke strong feelings, include rich narrative detail, and offer a simple “gist” or take-home message. 21 Sci- entists and their research rarely offer any of these things. Experts are bringing research papers to a ﬁre- ﬁght and, in doing so, they have lost before they even started talking. The consequence is that antivaccine activists were, for a while, dominant on many social media platforms. More recently, citizen and scientist activists have fought back with increasingly effective tools. Examples include the National HPV Vaccination Roundtable which created videos of people affected by HPV cancers and their doctors in order to make the consequences of the diseases more vivid. The WHO created a manual for addressing vaccine deniers in public. 22 Shots Heard Round the World developed a rapid-response collective of volunteers to defend health care providers attacked for their vaccine advocacy. Quantifying the impact of anti- and provaccine activism and tools is an important area for new research. TAGGEDH1DIRECT BEHAVIOR CHANGE The third broad proposition in the model is that foster- ing direct behavior change increases vaccine uptake (Fig. 4). The general idea is that one can increase vaccine uptake without ever changing what people think and feel or the social world they encounter. Thus, direct behavior change takes motivation as a given. One can build on favorable intentions to vaccinate, pouring gas onto a lit ﬁre, by keeping vaccination on people’s minds and reduc- ing barriers to it. Alternatively, one can ignore intentions altogether and shape behavior with incentives, sanction, and requirements—techniques that do not rely on predis- position to vaccinate. These interventions lead to vaccina- tion uptake, shown in the right. One approach to direct behavior change is to build on people’s good intentions. That means, ﬁrst, to identify the people who already intend to vaccinate or are open to it, and then to make it as easy as possible for them to do so. Interventions include keeping vaccination on people’s minds with reminders and prompts and reducing barriers with default appointments, standing orders, and other logistical and behavioral defaults. Randomized trials gen- erally support the use of building on vaccination inten- tions to increase uptake. Another approach is to shape behavior with incentives, sanctions, or requirements, including work and school vaccination mandates. Again, randomized trials have repeatedly found support for the effectiveness of behavior-shaping interventions. The key shared characteristic of these strategies is that they use policies and practices to increase vaccination without changing what people think or feel. Direct behavior change interventions are the most reliably effective option available, but they do have limitations. For example, while vaccination reminder/ recall interventions are effective, few clinics effectively implement them. In one randomized trial, less than 1% of families received a reminder/recall letter or call when the task was assigned to clinics, but 87% received the notices when the county health department handled the responsibility. 23 Furthermore, notices from a cen- tralized source are more effective when they include the name of the patient’s provider. 23 In another exam- ple, school requirements (sometimes called mandates) effectively increase uptake of most vaccines 24 but do not raise HPV vaccine uptake among adolescent girls. 25 As well, the process of implementing requirements can create substantial work for immunization programs and distract their staff from other essential tasks. 26 All of that suggests that the right implementation strategy is critically important for direct behavior change interventions. Motivation (or hesitancy) Vaccination uptake (or refusal, delay) Build on favorable intentions Keep vaccination on people’s minds with reminders, prompts, and primes Reduce barriers with logistics and behavioral defaults Shape behavior Implement incentives, sanctions, and requirements Figure 4.Direct behavior change. Reprinted with permission from the Association for Psychological Science. TAGGEDENDS12 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Item 13.G 01/11/21 306 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4458 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) TAGGEDH1OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Several important considerations should guide practi- tioners and scientists using this model. TAGGEDH2PROVIDER RECOMMENDATIONSTAGGEDEND By far, the single most potent intervention for increas- ing vaccine uptake is a provider recommendation. 27 How- ever, it is still unclear whether recommendations are effective because they increase conﬁdence, set a social norm, or reﬂect a direct behavior change technique. Quite possibly, provider recommendations exert inﬂuence through all 3 of the model’s behavioral propositions. The most active aspect of the model from the standpoint of provider recommendations may be direct behavior change, given the few barriers present in many clinics: the vaccine is in stock, staff can deliver it, and a state pro- gram or private insurance generally covers the cost. Given that providers have more power than patients in clinical interactions, injunctivesocialnormsarealso likelytoplaysomerole.Itmayevenbethatproviders persuasively shape what people think and feel by building on their unique relationship with the families they see. Research is needed to elucidate basic ques- tions about what makes provider recommendations most effective. While most evidence for provider recommendations is correlational, several trials have focused on the impact of training providers to communicate more effectively about vaccination. In my own research, 28 colleagues and I have trained providers to raise the topic of adolescent vaccina- tion using presumptive language 29 that we call an “announcement” and then to use a structured communica- tion approach if questions come up. A presumptive announcement might sound like this: “Now that Sophia is 12, she is due for 3 vaccines. Today, she’ll get vaccines against meningitis, HPV cancers, and whooping cough.” The Announcement Approach Training is a 1-hour, physi- cian-led, in-clinic training, offered with continuing medi- cal education credits (materials are available at hpvIQ. org). The training increased HPV vaccine uptake by 5% within 3 months 28 and has now been delivered to over 1700 providers in the United States and the United King- dom. This communication approach builds on direct behavior change principles by assuming most parents just need a prompt to vaccinate. TAGGEDH2INTERACTIONS AMONG THE PROPOSITIONSTAGGEDEND No strong data are available to explain how the 3 parts of the model interact, but I offer my own specula- tion, based on correlational studies and insights I have gathered from people on the frontlines of vaccination. First, although interventions to change what people think and feel may not change behavior directly, they may provide other indirect beneﬁts. Most of the policies and programs aimed at direct behavior change—by far the most effective way to increase vaccination uptake— require public conﬁdence in vaccination. Thus, interven- tions that increase vaccine conﬁdence may create an environment that supports direct behavior change inter- ventions. Second, interventions to change social processes may also change what people think and feel about diseases and vaccination. Although this has not yet been well-docu- mented in the context of vaccination, it is a reasonable speculation based on social network studies in other areas. Third, implementing direct behavior change interven- tions almost certainly affects other parts of the model. For example, establishing or removing vaccine recommenda- tions, or imposing requirements for certain vaccines, likely affects conﬁdence in vaccination. Similarly, leaders standing up for existing policies may bolster conﬁdence, while setting the policies aside in the face of public oppo- sition may erode conﬁdence in vaccination. TAGGEDH2GLOBAL SETTINGSTAGGEDEND Most vaccination intervention studies are from the United States, and some are from other high-income coun- tries. Only a handful of intervention studies from low- and middle-income countries have examined vaccination incentives and educational programs. While these have generally shown the same results as studies in high- income countries, caution is warranted in applying the interventions to global settings until formative work is done within the local communities and perhaps trial-level evaluations are conducted. Such research could be a 2- way street, with vaccination programs in high-income countries beneﬁtting from learning what is effective in increasing vaccine uptake in low- and middle-income countries. TAGGEDH2TIMELINESS AND STABILITYTAGGEDEND The available evidence primarily examines vaccine uptake. Because few studies are available on vaccination timeliness and stability, application of the model to these outcomes remains preliminary and warrants additional study. An area of growing interest is understanding what leads to and sustains the resilience of vaccination programs. TAGGEDH1ADAPTATION OF THE MODEL BY WHO Following on WHO’s designation of vaccine hesi- tancy as one of the top 10 threats to global public health, the agency established an expert working group to identify the behavioral and social drivers of vacci- nation uptake around the world. The working group has adapted the Increasing Vaccination Model, as shown in Figure 5, as the basis for its work. The boxes in the model have remained the same over time, even as the working group has continued to winnow the list variables in each box. Among the noteworthy highlights from that adaptation: The box for what people think and feel does not include risk appraisals. The working group started with a childhood vaccine survey, but parents struggled to think about vaccine-preventable infections without TAGGEDENDACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S13Item 13.G 01/11/21 307 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4459 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) speciﬁc examples. The group has incorporated risk appraisals in later surveys on speciﬁc vaccines (eg, coronavirus disease 2019). Motivation to vaccinate is in its own box, allowing the working group to emphasize the difference between conﬁdence and hesitancy. Provider recommendation is in the social process box. This categorization was not a settled issue in the origi- nal paper, but it allowed the working group to keep track of this important variable. The direct behavior change box is renamed “practical issues” and drops the distinction between building on favorable intentions and shaping behavior. Many working group members had roles in vaccination programs globally, which led them to see observable barriers and practical issues as especially important. They felt that the new name emphasized barriers that surveys can measure and vaccination programs can address. Before using the Increasing Vaccination Model, the working group had not engaged with the several concepts related to social processes. The model caused a shift in their thinking in that domain, leading the group to Vaccination Child receives recommended vaccines Motivation Intention to get recommended vaccines for child Practical issues Know where vaccine is available Ease of access Affordability Service quality Respect from provider What people think and feel Confidence in vaccine benefits Confidence in vaccine safety Confidence in provider Religious beliefs Social processes Provider recommendation Family supports vaccination Community supports vaccination Gender equity Figure 5.Adaptation of the increasing vaccination model by WHO working group. Table.Impact of Interventions to Increase Vaccination Uptake TAGGEDENDS14 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Item 13.G 01/11/21 308 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4460 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) consider the roles of families, community leaders, and gender equity. Based on their adapted model, the WHO working group has developed a survey on the behavioral and social drivers of vaccination around the world. The survey is being piloted in 6 low- and middle-income coun- tries and should be available for use globally in 2021. TAGGEDH1CONCLUSION Direct behavior change is clearly the most promising approach to increasing vaccination uptake and research supports the use of many different techniques, as shown at the bottom of Table.1 No single intervention is effective on its own, however, making it necessary to adopt more than one. Insofar as each intervention acts on different parts of the system that provides vaccination, their combi- nation may be truly additive or even multiplicative in their effects. It is also possible that the initial intervention acti- vates the “easy” cases to vaccinate, and that additional interventions add little. More information is needed on this topic, but given the high cost of trials, and the difﬁ- culty in evaluating the impact of individual factors in mul- ticomponent interventions, such knowledge may be out of reach. In contrast, interventions to change what people think and feel are often expensive and hard to sustain, and they may not be especially effective (as shown at the top of Table). An important caveat here is that interven- tions by health care professionals in clinical settings may be inﬂuential if they effectively use communica- tion approaches based on information, persuasion, and engaged listening. Interventions targeting social processes are promising insofar as they build on multiple nodes of social networks or happen in clinical settings. In this era of social media and vocal vaccine activism, the conversations about vac- cination, both in the public sphere and in private settings, have an outsized inﬂuence on programs and policies. What this adds up to remains to be seen, but research is underway that should shed light on the pitfalls and prom- ises of social processes. Thinking more broadly about public support for vacci- nation, work is needed to understand how to ensure resil- ience in the face of safety scares. Interventions to boost vaccine conﬁdence may not increase vaccination uptake directly, but they may have a side beneﬁt of increasing support for effective policies and programs. Interventions through social media—to add supportive stories and infor- mation or to limit misinformation—may also increase vac- cination support. Other strategies can also be considered, including targeted efforts when new vaccines are launched and to address unsubstantiated vaccine scares; indeed, data are accumulating to support the value of efforts by coun- tries to bolster conﬁdence during such scares. 3 As we move into a new decade, it is essential to ensure the resilience of vaccination programs, and the global suc- cess story they represent. The Increasing Vaccination Model offers important insights to support such efforts. Building on the large existing body of evidence can ensure a steady path forward for vaccination programs globally. TAGGEDH1ACKNOWLEDGMENTSTAGGEDEND Financial disclosure:This article was published as part of a supple- ment sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Disclaimer:The ﬁndings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the ofﬁcial position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I thank Dr Valerie Reyna for commissioning it; my intrepid collabo- rators, Dr Gretchen Chapman, Dr Alex Rothman, Dr Julie Leask, and Dr Allison Kempe for tolerating 2 years of weekly meetings and 2 multiday retreats; and Dr Jennifer Spencer for her inspired research support during the literature reviews. I thank Dr Bruce Gellin for inspiring it and Karyn Feiden for her expert editing. Finally, I thank Dr Julie Leask and Lisa Menning for championing the model at the World Health Organization and elsewhere. Financial statement: Funding for writing the current brief overview came from the Aspen Institute and the Sabin Foundation. Previous presentations: The original article on the Increasing Vaccination Model appeared in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.1 TAGGEDH1REFERENCES 1.Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Rothman AJ, et al. Increasing vaccina- tion: putting psychological science into action.Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2017;18:149–207. 2. World Health Organization.Global health observatory data: mea- sles-containing-vaccine ﬁrst-dose (MCV1) immunization coverage among 1-year-olds. 2019. Available at:https://www.who.int/gho/ immunization/measles/en/. Accessed July 2, 2020. 3.Hansen PR, Schmidtblaicher M, Brewer NT. Resilience of HPV vaccine uptake in Denmark: decline and recovery.Vaccine. 2020;38:1842–1848. 4.Sheeran P, Maki A, Montanaro E, et al. The impact of changing atti- tudes, norms, and self-efﬁcacy on health-related intentions and behavior: a meta-analysis.Health Psychol. 2016;35:1178. 5.Brewer NT, Weinstein ND, Cuite CL, et al. Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior.Ann Behav Med. 2004;27:125–130. 6.Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, et al. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the exam- ple of vaccination.Health Psychol. 2007;26:136. 7.Brewer NT, DeFrank JT, Gilkey MB. Anticipated regret and health behavior: a meta-analysis.Health Psychol. 2016;35:1264. 8.Sheeran P. Intention-behavior relations: a conceptual and empirical review.Eur Rev Social Psychol. 2002;12:1–36. 9.Parsons JE, Newby KV, French DP. Do interventions containing risk messages increase risk appraisal and the subsequent vaccination intentions and uptake? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23:1084–1106. 10.Sheeran P, Harris PR, Epton T. Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experi- mental studies.Psychol Bull. 2014;140:511. 11.Horne Z, Powell D, Hummel JE, et al. Countering antivaccination attitudes.Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:10321–10324. 12.Shah PD, Calo WA, Gilkey MB, et al. Questions and concerns about HPV vaccine: a communication experiment.Pediatrics. 2019;143: e20181872. 13.Nyhan B, Reiﬂer J, Richey S, et al. Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial.Pediatrics. 2014;133:e835–e842. 14.Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull. 2006;132:249. 15.Dempsey AF, Pyrznawoski J, Lockhart S, et al. Effect of a health care professional communication training intervention on adolescent human papillomavirus vaccination: a cluster randomized clinical trial.JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172. e180016-e180016. TAGGEDENDACADEMIC PEDIATRICS WHAT WORKS TO INCREASE VACCINATION UPTAKE S15Item 13.G 01/11/21 309 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4461 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 16.Gagneur A, Lema^ıtre T, Gosselin V, et al. A postpartum vaccination promotion intervention using motivational interviewing techniques improves short-term vaccine coverage: PromoVac study.BMC Pub- lic Health. 2018;18:811. 17.Dunn AG, Surian D, Leask J, et al. Mapping information exposure on social media to explain differences in HPV vaccine coverage in the United States.Vaccine. 2017;35:3033–3040. 18. Schmid P, Rauber D, Betsch C, et al. Barriers of inﬂuenza vaccina- tion intention and behavior—a systematic review of inﬂuenza vac- cine hesitancy, 2005-2016.PloS One. 2017;12:e0170550.https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170550. 19.Centola D. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment.Science. 2010;329:1194–1197. 20.Centola D. The social origins of networks and diffusion.Am J Sociol. 2015;120:1295–1338. 21.Reyna VF. A new intuitionism: meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace theory.Judgm Decis Making. 2012;7:332–359. 22.WorldHealthOrganization.How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public. 2016. Available at:https://www.who.int/ immunization/sage/meetings/2016/october/8_Best-practice-guid- ance-respond-vocal-vaccine-deniers-public.pdfTaggedEnd. Accessed July 2, 2020. 23.Kempe A, Saville AW, Dickinson LM, et al. Collaborative central- ized reminder/recall notiﬁcation to increase immunization rates among young children: a comparative effectiveness trial.JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169:365–373. 24.Greyson D, Vriesema-Magnuson C, Bettinger JA. Impact of school vaccination mandates on pediatric vaccination coverage: a system- atic review.CMAJ Open. 2019;7:E524. 25.Moss JL, Reiter PL, Truong YK, et al. School entry requirements and coverage of nontargeted adolescent vaccines.Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20161414. 26.Omer SB, Betsch C, Leask J. Mandate Vaccination With Care.Nature. 2019;571:469–472. 27.Newman PA, Logie CH, Lacombe-Duncan A, et al. Parents’ uptake of human papillomavirus vaccines for their children: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019206. 28.Brewer NT, Hall ME, Malo TL, et al. Announcements versus con- versations to improve HPV vaccination coverage: a randomized trial.Pediatrics. 2017;139:e20161764. 29.Opel DJ, Heritage J, Taylor JA, et al. The architecture of provider- parent vaccine discussions at health supervision visits.Pediatrics. 2013;132:1037–1046. TAGGEDENDS16 BREWER ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS Item 13.G 01/11/21 310 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4462 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: People OPPOSE Vaccine Passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:18:18 PM From: Kendra Henderson <kendra@globetrotterbodyworker.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:14 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: People OPPOSE Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL Dear SM City Council, Vaccine Passports do NOT slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. Multiple people I personally know that are fully vaccinated and boosted have still contracted and transmitted the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise to slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA? I urge you do NOT mandate this policy. It is ineffective and discriminatory. Thank you for your consideration, Kendra G. Henderson Item 13.G 01/11/21 311 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4463 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:18:12 PM -----Original Message----- From: s. g. <grantspeak@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:15 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I absolutely do NOT support a vaccine passport. I will aggressively campaign against any council member that votes or supports it. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Susan Grant. 25 year resident. Sent from Susan's iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 312 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4464 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please adopt vaccine requirements for indoor activities Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:16:16 PM From: Jennifer Brockett <jlbrockett@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:16 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: Please adopt vaccine requirements for indoor activities EXTERNAL I am writing to follow up on my email from November. The situation has only gotten more dire. Our hospitals are again filling up. Today, the LA Times has recommended against eating indoors unless vaccinations are required, as they are in our neighboring cities. https://apple.news/AfM_kiHokT5CJ40rKHnPDPw And I guarantee that if you walk into any gym in Santa Monica, you will see people removing their masks to drink or wipe off sweat, or wearing them improperly. I urge you to join our neighboring cities and require proof of vaccination to eat indoors or work out at a gym. Delay only helps the virus. Regards, Jennifer Brockett Santa Monica resident since 2005 Get Outlook for iOS From: Jennifer Brockett <jlbrockett@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, November 5, 2021 4:42:05 PM To: council@smgov.net <council@smgov.net> Subject: Please adopt vaccine requirements for indoor activities Dear Santa Monica City Council, On Monday, the City of LA joins neighboring cities (including Beverly Hills and West Hollywood), in requiring Covid 19 vaccination or proof of a negative test in order to participate in most indoor activities. I urge you to adopt the same requirements for Santa Monica. At a minimum, any indoor venue where people regularly remove their mask to eat and drink (such as restaurants, movie theaters, and gyms) should require proof of vaccination or a negative test, for the safety of all patrons and the safety of staff. Absent such a requirement, you will force our family, and others, to eat at restaurants in Los Angeles rather than in Santa Monica. We have not eaten indoors at a restaurant since March of 2020, and look forward to doing so this winter in our hometown, if Santa Monica imposes a vaccine\test requirement. Proof of Item 13.G 01/11/21 313 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4465 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) vaccination will also provide better assurances to foreign travelers, many of whom are accustomed to such measures in their home countries. Vaccinations are the fastest way for us to all get back to normal. Thank you for your consideration, Jennifer Brockett Santa Monica resident since 2005 Item 13.G 01/11/21 314 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4466 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Public health crisis and messages being ignored Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:15:15 PM From: Lyn Greenberg <lrgpers@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2021 6:00 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; parra@smgov.net; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <commissionerbrock@gmail.com> Subject: Public health crisis and messages being ignored EXTERNAL Councilmembers, For weeks I and others (including my physician husband) have written to you URGING that a vax mandate be created here for indoor eating and other indoor venues. LA County public health can certainly be faulted for not acting, but Los Angeles, Culver City, Pasadena and other locations have been responsible enough to do it on their own. Now we are reduced to public service messages BEGGING people to act responsibly, while the least responsible people (those who are unvaccinated) have an incentive to come to Santa Monica while even some of the vaccinated community here - in addition to young children who cannot be vaccinated - are endangered. You should have at least had a public debate on this so that people could have weighed in officially - since without an agenda item our messages are often ignored! You need an official medical advisor for your decisions on this. Many of you already know Sion Roy and I could recommend people from UCLA or other places. If the only people you are listening to are the so-called "business community," the rest of us and especially the most vulnerable are getting drowned out. I don't know what has happened to you. This is not the city I've lived in for over 30 years. The city I know is the one taking these wonderful steps to invite people who were victimized by racist policies that cost them their homes. The city I don't recognize is the one that refused to even consider common sense steps to protect us all during the holidays. A response would be appreciated this time. Happy Holidays - please DO SOMETHING -- Item 13.G 01/11/21 315 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4467 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Lyn Greenberg Item 13.G 01/11/21 316 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4468 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Concerned Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:13:14 PM -----Original Message----- From: Danyell <danyellsparks@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:11 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Concerned EXTERNAL Love that ! I hope he wrote a letter too ! This is mine if he wants to copy and paste : I am a tax paying resident and am vehemently AGAINST a vaccine passport in Santa Monica. To adopt a policy that requires segregating and discriminating against members of our community is illegal and politically unsound. Secondly, vaccine passports have no epidemiological effect at all. At this point in time, we know that vaccinated persons (and Boosted persons) can still contract and transmit the virus. (https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0730-mmwr-covid- 19.html__;!!OfuUnHCITYtmmjM!- hRx4nrFnjSR5Vz6L3NKIS6eAL0MiVihcxyxSxNayeNnn8Hgn2vw3hx_IUyRJzM$ ). To adopt a vaccine passport is not adhering to 'the science' and will not slow down transmission - if that is your goal. The adoption of a vax passport would only do MORE to detrimentally affect small businesses in Santa Monica, making it harder for people to access services or private businesses, whilst employees will be tasked with 'policing' the policy. Our children will have their first weekend jobs and volunteer opportunities in Santa Monica and they would not want to be tasked with a policy that sanctions discrimination and segregation. If your aim is to intentionally cause discrimination and segregation, to inflict psychological pressure on Santa Monica residents to make their lives more difficult, to put the city in a position where it will be sued -- then you will vote yes for this. There is no medical or epidemiological justification to have a vaccine passport in Santa Monica. This is a misguided and flawed policy that needs to be removed from the agenda. thank you, Danyell Mahoney Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 317 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4469 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica restaurants Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:48:06 PM -----Original Message----- From: Danalaurend d <danalaurend@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:46 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Santa Monica restaurants EXTERNAL Hello, As a Santa Monica resident I feel that our restaurants should adhere to the LA City Vaccine Mandate. Vaccines are important to the health and safety of our community. Thank you, Dana Item 13.G 01/11/21 318 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4470 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Lisa McErlane To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:Public health Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:47:37 PM EXTERNAL Santa Monica has done a wonderful job with vaccination rates and safety protocol. Please keep us in line with LA’s protocols and prioritize our public heath. Thank you, Lisa McErlane Yao Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 319 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4471 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose vaccine passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:30:19 PM From: Charlotte Solomon <charliesolomon74@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:26 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Oppose vaccine passport EXTERNAL Hello, I am a resident of Malibu and the parent of two boys ages 17 and 5. I’m writing to you today because I oppose the vaccine mandate passport for children so they can attend in person education or for any reason. Also, the masking of children is so unhealthy. I believe that every parent has the right to make their own medical decisions for their children, without coercion, threats or discrimination. Our immediate family had Covid. We all recovered very well. My 17 year old showed minor symptoms and my 5 year old absolutely no symptoms. None of us had side effects from the virus. I’m an asthmatic and I treated my symptoms with a nebulizer. There is an almost 100% recovery rate for children and thankfully we have access to alternative Item 13.G 01/11/21 320 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4472 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) treatments which are healthier for their developing bodies. At this point we don’t know what the side effects are from this experimental shot and I’m not willing to risk that in order to send them to school. These are our children. We need to protect them. It’s my job to protect mine! I strongly oppose the vaccination passport for Covid 19 for children. Thank you for your time -- Sent from Gmail Mobile Item 13.G 01/11/21 321 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4473 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Patricia Hoffman To:councilmtgitems Subject:Item 13G Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:27:57 PM EXTERNAL I support Item 13G. Mandates work. Thank you, Patricia Hoffman Item 13.G 01/11/21 322 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4474 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: SM City Council Meeting - 1/11/22 Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:26:50 PM From: Golden Patriot <GPatriot17@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:23 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: SM City Council Meeting - 1/11/22 EXTERNAL Good afternoon, In regards to this evenings city council meeting and the proposal for a vaccine passports in the city of Santa Monica, I am asking you to please vote "NO". Over the past few weeks we have seen that no matter if you have been vaccinated or even boosted, you can still contract the virus. Therefore, enacting this would not follow the science but instead create segregation and discrimination for residents. In addition, for a business to ask for a persons vaccine passport/medical records is against the law in terms one's HIPA rights. Furthermore, to force or incentivize people into taking this vaccine to gain entry to facilities is a violation of 21 code of federal regulations sections 50.23 & 24 and states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The Covid vaccines are currently in phase 3 of trials with Moderna expecting completion in October of 2023, Johnson & Johnson in January of 2023, and Pfizer expects to end trials in May of 2023. **I have attached the links for each companies clinical trials: Pfizer: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1 Moderna: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427?term=NCT04470427&draw=2&rank=1 Johnson & Johnson: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04505722 As you can see, this policy would be unconstitutional and against various federal laws. I again ask of you to please vote "NO" and instead please talk about the benefits of eating healthy, exercising and enjoying time outdoors. It does wonders for the body! Thank you very much for your time and I hope you have a beautiful day. Sara Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. Item 13.G 01/11/21 323 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4475 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Item 13.G 01/11/21 324 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4476 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Gene Oppenheim To:councilmtgitems Subject:Item 13g Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:57:34 PM EXTERNAL I fully agree with the item as written to require full vaccination for indoor activities as described. I also support a mask mandate for most of not all public in door activities. These mandates will greatly help prevent the spread of the COVID virus, and reduce disease, hospitalizations, and death! Thank you, Gene Oppenheim, MD MPH Item 13.G 01/11/21 325 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4477 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:49:25 PM From: rayndarojka@aol.com <rayndarojka@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:41 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Oppose Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I do not support the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport! This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Item 13.G 01/11/21 326 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4478 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passportand potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second- class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services toresidents based on a medical procedure. It is critical that a vaccine passport not be implemented in Santa Monica! Thank you, Darojka Monti Item 13.G 01/11/21 327 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4479 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose passports! Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:49:16 PM From: Sue Kilpatrick <suekilp87@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:31 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Oppose passports! EXTERNAL To whom it may concern, I understand there is a proposal to institute vaccine passports next month. I adamantly oppose this measure. It is unconstitutional and a violation of my constitutional privacy rights. Please DO NOT make this move. It will further hurt business. It will make your city one step closer to Nazi Germany conditions. Thank you, Susan Kilpatrick Item 13.G 01/11/21 328 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4480 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: opposing Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:49:08 PM From: Tatiana Khmilinina <tatiana@yyk.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:34 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: opposing Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL I am strongly opposing the Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica, this is a violation of the individual right to choose what's right for the individual's health, is unfair, divisive and should be dismissed. I am fully vaccinated, but I made my choice, and want to acknowledge other's rights. Thank you, Tatiana Khmilinina 310-800-8222 Item 13.G 01/11/21 329 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4481 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: OPPOSE Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:49:00 PM From: JAMES ENSTROM <jenstrom@ucla.edu> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:37 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: OPPOSE Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL January 11, 2022 Santa Monica City Council council@smgov.net David.White@santamonica.gov Re: January 11, 2022 Santa Monica City Council Agenda OPPOSE Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport Dear Council Members, I am a long-time resident of Los Angeles who lives near Santa Monica and who visits merchants and health care providers in Santa Monica regularly. Please OPPOSE Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport for the reasons listed below. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. You were elected to be good stewards of public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica cannot afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of Item 13.G 01/11/21 330 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4482 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) HIPAA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for persons who are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” these persons to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations sections 50.23 and 50.24, which states it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing peoples’ medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate peoples’ rights under HIPAA. 3. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among people and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to people based on a medical procedure. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely yours, James E. Enstrom, PhD, MPH Retired UCLA Research Professor (Epidemiology) President, Scientific Integrity Institute jenstrom@ucla.edu Item 13.G 01/11/21 331 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4483 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Restaurant vaccine mandate Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:48:16 PM -----Original Message----- From: Andrea Alpert <akalpert@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:46 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Restaurant vaccine mandate EXTERNAL Hello, As we continue to be flooded with covid cases, the only logical step to help ensure the safety of our restaurant workers and patrons, as well as the residents of our city, is to mandate vaccines for those wanting to dine in a Santa Monica establishment. We should follow the mandate that LA city has in place requiring vaccines for indoor dining. Thank you, Andrea Alpert 18 year resident of Santa Monica Parent of 3 SMMUSD students Item 13.G 01/11/21 332 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4484 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Jennifer To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:SM Vaccine mandate Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:59:06 PM EXTERNAL Please vote yes! This is extremely sensible and the easiest way to keep our city safe! All the science and data points to this. Let’s think of our under 5 year olds who cannot get vaccinated and immuno-compromised who need all the support our community can give them. Our essential workers should not have to work in conditions surrounded by unvaccinated people. Thanks, Jennifer Freeman Item 13.G 01/11/21 333 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4485 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Hilary Galanoy To:councilmtgitems Subject:Santa Monica City Council meeting January 11, 2022 -- agenda item 13G -- Staff Report 4924 Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:58:11 PM EXTERNAL As a 6 1/2 year resident of Santa Monica, I FULLY SUPPORT an indoor business vaccine mandate for our city. I have been concerned for months that we don't have a health mandate in our wonderful city andare literally inviting unvaccinated people from Los Angeles to flood our restaurants and businesses. Theyare taking advantage of the fact we don't have restrictions and know they won't be asked for proof ofvaccination. This article from today's New York Times is proof that the unvaccinated are prolonging this pandemic: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/briefing/omicron-deaths-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated.html My 23-year-old stepson works in a popular Santa Monica restaurant as a line cook. While he is tripled vaccinated, I am very concerned is he put at a greater risk of catching Covid than his peers at any LACity-based restaurant that requires proof of vaccination. (And, in turn, exposing me and his father.) I know the Council is meeting on this very issue tonight, January 11th. Please vote YES on the indoor vaccine mandates and keep the residents of our city safe! Hilary Galanoy2636 32nd StreetSanta Monica, CA 90405(323) 493-7330 Item 13.G 01/11/21 334 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4486 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:43:48 PM From: Theresa Gilyeart <theresatp@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:26 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: EXTERNAL Hello, As a la county resident I want to write you to let you know I don’t support enacting a Vaccine Passport in Santa Monica and beyond this is illegal and gives people false sense of security. As we all know these vaccines DO NOT STOP the spread or slow it down. Rational thinking needed. Item 13.G 01/11/21 335 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4487 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:43:42 PM From: Houman Hemmati <houmanhemmati@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:38 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Cc: Ellen Goldstein <ehgoldstein@gmail.com> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear honorable members of the Santa Monica City Council, As a physician and scientist who addresses millions of Americans regarding COVID management in the media each week, I urge the Council to NOT adopt a vaccine mandate. I’ve been studying all the latest data and literature in real time on this and have the following thoughts: Prior to the onset of the omicron variant, when we were faced with a very deadly Delta strain and when we had a vaccine that we believed at the time would prevent transmission from an infected person to an uninfected person, it made sense for cities and counties to consider vaccine requirements for certain indoor locations. Since that time, a few things have changed: 1. We have seen a ton of data comparing transmission rates between cities that did and did not have such vaccine mandates for indoor venues, and the data suggest that the mandates did nothing significant to reduce the community spread of the virus. 2. We now have a massive body of literature that the existing vaccines ONLY prevent the vaccinated individual from becoming very sick or dying but do NOT prevent them from spreading an infection to another person/people. 3. The omicron variant is resistant to the current vaccines so individuals who have been fully vaccinated or even vaccinated + boosted can STILL become infected at a similar rate as unvaccinated people AND spread the infection to others. 4. The omicron variant hasn’t caused more than a small handful of deaths worldwide and it’s now representing 95-99% of all infections in the United States. 5. With the omicron variant, a massive proportion of the population has been infected and now has very robust natural immunity. That immunity is strongest and most long lasting in children. My daughter, age 6, for example, was infected over Christmas. She wasn’t vaccinated, was 100% back to normal in 24 hours, and is now immune without a vaccine. So with all this information, especially the evolution of the virus to now become a very weak Item 13.G 01/11/21 336 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4488 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) infection (for nearly everyone a bad cold to a mild flu at worst) and the high rates of natural immunity PLUS vaccination in our community, I don’t see there being a benefit to imposing a vaccine mandate in Santa Monica at this time. It would create undo hardship on businesses that have already suffered and exclude a lot of people (many or most who are already immune from infection) from entering businesses. All this cost would come at no meaningful benefit at this time given the totality of the medical information we have before us. Therefore, I would strongly suggest not imposing a local vaccine mandate but rather doing the following: 1. Recommending mask wear for all over age 5 when not eating or drinking 2. Excluding symptomatic individuals (cough or runny nose) 3. Conducting non-contact temperature checks before indoor entry at restaurants and bars, where people are without masks indoors much of the time (COVID infected people truly develop a measurable fever that’s detected in half a second). Those aforementioned measures would probably make a dramatically higher impact on transmission than anything else at this point. We don't need a mandate that will only cause harm without any benefits. You can read my recent OpEd on Omicron here: https://outline.com/8mHH4K I’m more than happy to discuss further. Thanks! Houman David Hemmati MD PhD 310-600-4123 Item 13.G 01/11/21 337 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4489 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:43:33 PM From: deeonn la <deeonn@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:43 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Dear City Council Members, I am writing to indicate my support for implementing a vaccine mandate for those entering certain indoor establishments in Santa Monica. I support a full mandate, with as few exemptions as legally possible. For example, I do not agree with a religious exemption. Similarly, if testing is permitted to allow access by the unvaccinated, it must be a PCR test. Best, DeAnne Ozaki (Santa Monica Resident) Item 13.G 01/11/21 338 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4490 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) | From:Gina DeBaca To:councilmtgitems; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Phil Brock; Gleam Davis;David White; Denise Anderson-Warren; Sue Himmelrich Subject:vaccine passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:43:08 PM EXTERNAL Greetings Council, Agenda G13 This Letter is to OPPOSE The vaccine passport. I am a supporter of Vaccines, but NOT of Divisive passports.Our community has enough issues, we don't need to create another issue by denying people basic human rights due to their vaccine choices. Please review Our Federal HIPPA Laws. Creating a vaccine passport is Illegal Unethical Immoral Divisive and a Nazi Tactic! Blessings,Gina DeBaca “Dance is the hidden language of the soul” ― Martha Graham Item 13.G 01/11/21 339 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4491 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: The right of Freedom - my body my choice NO TO VACCINE MANDATES Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:43:55 PM Attachments:MODERNA FDA FACT SHEET.pdf From: Lisa Christine <lisa.christine10@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:20 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: The right of Freedom - my body my choice NO TO VACCINE MANDATES EXTERNAL I STRONGLY oppose any vaccine mandate everywhere. On top of the stated position below, I add my own research to this argument in favor of personal choice of what we put in our bodies and limitations set on our businesses. Arguments against the SM-V Passport. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. After Booster shot is given, zero protection of original 2 shots, the protection is less than 37% based on CDC's own statistics as of January 2021 of protection against severe illness and death and does not stop transmission at all as it is not intended to lower viral load. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security AND A BLATANT LIE in facts. The double jab does not protect ANYONE after 10 weeks and rapidly declines even further after that putting businesses as risk with contagious vaccinated customers that further spread the disease. After Booster shot is given, zero protection of original 2 shots, the protection is less than 37% based on CDC's own statistics as of January 2021 of protection against severe illness and death and does not stop transmission at all as it is not intended to lower viral load. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. Will I be allowed to ask if any of my patrons have STDs, diagnosed with cancer and are going through Chemotherapy treatments that put them at risk in any community environment, HIV infected? Can I discriminate based on EVERY risk a patron might contaminate my business? 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the Item 13.G 01/11/21 340 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4492 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Vaccinated and Unvaccinated have the exact same opportunity to pass on this virus. With the factual knowledge that this is true and stated as such by the CDC, any passport voted on would be for ulterior motives that are NOT in thebest interest of health, community, and safety. It is about control. This will NEVER slow the spread of the virus andit is a proven fact. . The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-classcitizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medicalprocedure. If you vote to implement this vaccine passport which requires MULTIPLE sources ofIDENTIFICATION which will in turn allow you to vote in favor or VOTING IDENTIFICATION as well showingyou support that all individuals have and can show identification in order to participate in ANY AND ALLactivities in Santa Monica/Los Angeles/California. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Over a million US citizens have been injured caused by this vaccine (VAERS). MANY (not able to keep up factualnumbers because they change so quickly) have lost their lives to these experimental, untested, unproven vaccines todo ANYTHING they intended to do except make BIG PHARMA huge profits. Will Santa Monica be liable for any and all injuries and deaths forcing their residents and patrons of Santa MonicaBusinesses to take a dangerous, experimental, UNAPPROVED by FDA ...let me say this again, THERE IS NOFDA APPROVED VACCINE FOR COVID19 that has gone through rigorous trials NOR IS THERE ANYVACCINE CREATED FOR THE STOPPING OF INFECTION OF THIS VIRUS. As listed on FDA fact sheet for all three vaccines: Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The possible sideeffects of the vaccine are still being studied in clinical trials. No blind testing is being done. Death, neurologicaldamage, POTTS disease, myocarditis, pericarditis, giillian barre syndrome, permanent physical disabilities too manyto list, and many more that i cannot even list them all. How can you consider MANDATING a vaccine that does nothing to stop the spread of the virus and its continued mutations??? Absurd to consider really. PLEASE open attachment and please actually READ what it says. Informed consent is required by law and everyhuman should be allowed to consent or reject consent to possible life long injuries. Nor are you considering natural immunity for millions of people who have contracted, survived and now haveimmunity GREATER than that of vaccines. AND if one decides to "change their mind" and get the vaccines, do they have to wait a year to get all three shots(and then additional required boosters every six months) to catch up to shop, eat, or have personal services? Thatwould ENCOURAGE greatly to NOT get the vaccine protocol started at all because it wouldn't matter anyway. Item 13.G 01/11/21 341 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4493 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) IN INDIVIDUALS 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER You are being offered the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2. This Fact Sheet contains information to help you understand the risks and benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, which you may receive because there is currently a pandemic of COVID-19. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and may prevent you from getting COVID-19. Read this Fact Sheet for information about the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Talk to the vaccination provider if you have questions. It is your choice to receive the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has received EUA from FDA to provide: •a two-dose primary series to individuals 18 years of age and older; •a third primary series dose to individuals 18 years of age and older who have beendetermined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise; •a single booster dose to the individuals 18 years of age and older who have completed a primary series with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine; and •a single booster dose to individuals 18 years of age and older who have completedprimary vaccination with a different authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine may not protect everyone. This Fact Sheet may have been updated. For the most recent Fact Sheet, please visit www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE YOU GET THIS VACCINE WHAT IS COVID-19? COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. This type of coronavirus has not been seen before. You can get COVID-19 through contact with another person who has the virus. It is predominantly a respiratory illness that can affect other organs. People with COVID- 19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported, ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms may appear 2 to 14 days after exposure to the virus. Symptoms may include: fever or chills; cough; shortness of breath; fatigue; muscle or body aches; headache; new loss of taste or smell; sore throat; congestion or runny nose; nausea or vomiting; diarrhea. Item 13.G 01/11/21 342 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4494 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WHAT IS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. The FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). For more information on EUA, see the “What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)?” section at the end of this Fact Sheet. WHAT SHOULD YOU MENTION TO YOUR VACCINATION PROVIDER BEFORE YOU GET THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? Tell your vaccination provider about all of your medical conditions, including if you: •have any allergies •have had myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) or pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) •have a fever •have a bleeding disorder or are on a blood thinner •are immunocompromised or are on a medicine that affects your immune system •are pregnant or plan to become pregnant •are breastfeeding •have received another COVID-19 vaccine •have ever fainted in association with an injection WHO SHOULD GET THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine in individuals 18 years of age and older. WHO SHOULD NOT GET THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? You should not get the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine if you: •had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of this vaccine •had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient of this vaccine WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS IN THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine contains the following ingredients: messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), lipids (SM-102, polyethylene glycol [PEG] 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol [DMG], cholesterol, and 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine [DSPC]), tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, acetic acid, sodium acetate trihydrate, and sucrose. HOW IS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE GIVEN? The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine will be given to you as an injection into the muscle. Primary Series: The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is administered as a 2-dose series, one month apart. A third primary series dose may be administered at least one month after the second dose to individuals who are determined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise. Item 13.G 01/11/21 343 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4495 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Booster Dose: •A single booster dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine may be administered at least 5 months after completion of a primary series of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine inindividuals 18 years of age and older. •A single booster dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine may be administered toindividuals 18 years of age and older who have completed primary vaccination with a different authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. Please check with your healthcareprovider regarding timing of the booster dose. HAS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE BEEN USED BEFORE? The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine. In clinical trials, approximately 15,400 individuals 18 years of age and older have received at least 1 dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Millions of individuals have received the vaccine under EUA since December 18, 2020. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? In an ongoing clinical trial, the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has been shown to prevent COVID-19 following 2 doses given 1 month apart. The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? There is a remote chance that the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after getting a dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after vaccination. Signs of a severe allergic reaction can include: •Difficulty breathing •Swelling of your face and throat •A fast heartbeat •A bad rash all over your body •Dizziness and weakness Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) have occurred in some people who have received the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. In most of these people, symptoms began within a few days following receipt of the second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The chance of having this occur is very low. You should seek medical attention right away if you have any of the following symptoms after receiving the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine: •Chest pain •Shortness of breath •Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart Side effects that have been reported in clinical trials with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine include: •Injection site reactions: pain, tenderness and swelling of the lymph nodes in the same arm Item 13.G 01/11/21 344 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4496 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) of the injection, swelling (hardness), and redness •General side effects: fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, chills, nausea and vomiting, fever, and rash Side effects that have been reported during post-authorization use of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine include: •Severe allergic reactions •Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) •Pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) •Fainting in association with injection of the vaccineThese may not be all the possible side effects of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials. WHAT SHOULD I DO ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS? If you experience a severe allergic reaction, call 9-1-1, or go to the nearest hospital. Call the vaccination provider or your healthcare provider if you have any side effects that bother you or do not go away. Report vaccine side effects to FDA/CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The VAERS toll-free number is 1-800-822-7967 or report online to https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html. Please include “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine EUA” in the first line of box #18 of the report form. In addition, you can report side effects to ModernaTX, Inc. at 1-866-MODERNA (1-866-663-3762). You may also be given an option to enroll in v-safe. V-safe is a new voluntary smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to check in with people who have been vaccinated to identify potential side effects after COVID-19 vaccination. V-safe asks questions that help CDC monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. V-safe also provides second-dose reminders if needed and live telephone follow-up by CDC if participants report a significant health impact following COVID-19 vaccination. For more information on how to sign up, visit: www.cdc.gov/vsafe. WHAT IF I DECIDE NOT TO GET THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? It is your choice to receive or not receive the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care. ARE OTHER CHOICES AVAILABLE FOR PREVENTING COVID-19 BESIDES MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? Another choice for preventing COVID-19 is Comirnaty, an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Other vaccines to prevent COVID-19 may be available under Emergency Use Authorization. Item 13.G 01/11/21 345 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4497 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) CAN I RECEIVE THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE AT THE SAME TIME AS OTHER VACCINES? Data have not yet been submitted to FDA on administration of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine at the same time as other vaccines. If you are considering receiving Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine with other vaccines, discuss your options with your healthcare provider. WHAT IF I AM IMMUNOCOMPROMISED? If you are immunocompromised, you may receive a third primary series dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The third dose may still not provide full immunity to COVID-19 in people who are immunocompromised, and you should continue to maintain physical precautions to help prevent COVID-19. In addition, your close contacts should be vaccinated as appropriate. WHAT IF I AM PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING? If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, discuss your options with your healthcare provider. WILL THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE GIVE ME COVID-19? No. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine does not contain SARS-CoV-2 and cannot give you COVID-19. KEEP YOUR VACCINATION CARD When you receive your first dose, you will get a vaccination card to show you when to return for your second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Remember to bring your card when you return. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions, visit the website or call the telephone number provided below. To access the most recent Fact Sheets, please scan the QR code provided below. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine website Telephone number www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua 1-866-MODERNA(1-866-663-3762) HOW CAN I LEARN MORE? •Ask the vaccination provider •Visit CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html •Visit FDA at https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal- regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization •Contact your state or local public health department Item 13.G 01/11/21 346 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4498 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WHERE WILL MY VACCINATION INFORMATION BE RECORDED? The vaccination provider may include your vaccination information in your state/local jurisdiction’s Immunization Information System (IIS) or other designated system. This will ensure that you receive the same vaccine when you return for the second dose. For more information about IISs, visit: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/about.html. CAN I BE CHARGED AN ADMINISTRATION FEE FOR RECEIPT OF THE COVID-19 VACCINE? No. At this time, the provider cannot charge you for a vaccine dose and you cannot be charged an out-of-pocket vaccine administration fee or any other fee if only receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. However, vaccination providers may seek appropriate reimbursement from a program or plan that covers COVID-19 vaccine administration fees for the vaccine recipient (private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, HRSA COVID-19 Uninsured Program for non-insured recipients). WHERE CAN I REPORT CASES OF SUSPECTED FRAUD? Individuals becoming aware of any potential violations of the CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program requirements are encouraged to report them to the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at 1-800-HHS-TIPS or TIPS.HHS.GOV. WHAT IS THE COUNTERMEASURES INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM? The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) is a federal program that may help pay for costs of medical care and other specific expenses of certain people who have been seriously injured by certain medicines or vaccines, including this vaccine. Generally, a claim must be submitted to the CICP within one (1) year from the date of receiving the vaccine. To learn more about this program, visit www.hrsa.gov/cicp/ or call 1-855-266-2427. WHAT IS AN EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA)? The United States FDA has made the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine available under an emergency access mechanism called an EUA. The EUA is supported by a Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) declaration that circumstances exist to justify the emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product. FDA may issue an EUA when certain criteria are met, which includes that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. In addition, the FDA decision is based on the totality of the scientific evidence available showing that the product may be effective to prevent COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. All of these criteria must be met to allow for the product to be used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The EUA for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 EUA declaration justifying emergency use of these products, unless terminated or revoked (after which the products may no longer be used). Item 13.G 01/11/21 347 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4499 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Moderna US, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02139 ©2021 ModernaTX, Inc. All rights reserved. Patent(s): www.modernatx.com/patents Revised: Jan/7/2022 Scan to capture that this Fact Sheet was provided to vaccine recipient for the electronic medical records/immunization information systems. GDTI: 0886983000349 Item 13.G 01/11/21 348 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4500 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:surfinguard-bparker@yahoo.com To:councilmtgitems Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White; Joseph Lawrence Subject:Oppose Agenda item 13G January 11, 2022 Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:59:56 PM EXTERNAL OPPOSE item 13G Request of Councilmember Brock, Mayor Himmelrich, and Councilmember Parra that the City of Santa Monica implement by executive order or return with an emergency ordinance, as soon as possible, but no later than February 8, 2022, to require that employees andall persons entering certain indoor facilities be fully vaccinated Dear Santa Monica City Council-persons Brock, Parra, Himmelrich, Negrete, McCowan, DeLaTorre, Davis, White, and Lawrence, Please oppose Item 13G, which creates a two-class medical apartheid system, immunity caste system, and would further the gap in equality, especially disproportionate numbers from some of our most vulnerable communities, such as people who are low-income, have disabilities, or are homeless, as well as more than 40 percent of people over age 65, including immigrant communities and communities of color who are already subject to over-policing and surveillance. Requiring COVID-19 vaccine passports for taking part in everyday life such as, but not limited to, attending a sporting event, patronizing a restaurant, or going to a movie theater would create two classes of citizens based on vaccination; and it’s illegal according to the UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.. The language of the UNRUH Civil Rights Act specifically outlaws discrimination in housing and PUBLIC accommodations based on sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status. The law clearly states there is a difference between the right of businesses to refuse service based on conduct as proposed to personal characteristics. Thank you for your consideration and service Item 13.G 01/11/21 349 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4501 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Best regards, Bee Parker Santa Monica, CA Item 13.G 01/11/21 350 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4502 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Margaret Goldenberg To:Council Mailbox; David White; councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete;Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White; Joseph Lawrence Subject:No Vaccine Passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:51:11 PM EXTERNAL NO VACCINE PASSPORTS! 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Item 13.G 01/11/21 351 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4503 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Restaurant Vaccine Mandate Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:45:55 PM -----Original Message----- From: zaradramov@gmail.com <zaradramov@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:45 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Restaurant Vaccine Mandate EXTERNAL Hello there, I am a resident of Santa Monica and I feel very strongly that the city of Santa Monica should require restaurants to follow the LA city vaccine mandate. Thank you, Zara Item 13.G 01/11/21 352 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4504 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO VACCINE PASSPORT PLEASE Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:45:25 PM -----Original Message----- From: Mike Moss <mikemoss3000@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:49 PM To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov> Cc: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO VACCINE PASSPORT PLEASE EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica Council and Members, I am a resident and property owner in Santa Monica. I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to any Vaccine Passport for several reason; It will NOT slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. - The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. - Fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. - This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. - This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport also creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. - Q: Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. - Q: Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. PLEASE NO VACCINE PASSPORTS. Item 13.G 01/11/21 353 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4505 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Mike Moss 2631 4TH ST 90405 Item 13.G 01/11/21 354 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4506 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 13.G Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:45:14 PM From: S Pilon <spilon14@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:50 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 13.G EXTERNAL To whom it May Concern... Santa Monica City Council I am writing to the Santa Monica City Council Agenda Item 13.G, in OPPOSITION, which would require proof of vaccination in many Santa Monica businesses. Though I am vaccinated, and have had Covid, I disagree with treating those who are not vaccinated as second-class citizens. As a citizen of Los Angeles County, passports serve no purpose because the science has shown a shot aka vaccine does not guarantee anything but an increase in survival rate. It also has shown through the "science" that a shot only lasts so many months and UNLESS EACH PERSON RECEIVES A SHOT AT THE EXACT SAME TIME a passport means nothing in preventing any spread. All it serves as, is a way to divide and isolate people. DISCRIMINATION TO ITS FULLEST EXTENT. You must look at the definition of a true vaccine! A true vaccine eradicates a disease. This "flu shot" only guarantees you have a fighting chance of survival but it cant guarantee you not getting Covid as we have seen with Omicron. Only natural immunity can do that aka "herd immunity" How many boosters can one receive... we must be realistic. My point is a vaccine passport doesn't guarantee you that you are going to be covid free walking through any business. All it does is instill discrimination against those who have the right to choose for themselves if they want the shot. Just like any yearly shot or preventive procedure. Your not forced you make the choice for yourself. Or do we repeat history like in the 1930's when the Nazis placed a yellow star on the Jewish people to separate them. What happened to non-discrimination and all people are created equal. And what about those who medically cannot take a vaccine or an older parent who is too old to take a vaccine because of their health status. And what about our HIPPA laws that clearly state we have the right to privacy. For these reasons and dozens more I could cite, I urge the Santa Monica City Council to vote NO on Agenda Item 13.G Item 13.G 01/11/21 355 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4507 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Sandra Pilon Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Item 13.G 01/11/21 356 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4508 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitemsSubject:FW: Vaccine mandate Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:44:32 PM From: Andrea Tzadik <andrea.tzadik@compass.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:54 PMTo: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine mandate EXTERNAL Please vote to bring Santa Monica restaurants in line with LA city's vaccine mandate. If people don't want to get vaccinated they shouldn't have the right to endanger others by eating in restaurants. They can eat at home! --Andrea TzadikAgentDRE#: 00984361 11999 San Vicente Blvd, Suite 300Los Angeles CA 90049m: 310.625.8208 Item 13.G 01/11/21 357 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4509 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: vaccine passport in Santa Monica Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:44:11 PM From: Eloise Krivosheia <ekrivosheia@dslextreme.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:05 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: vaccine passport in Santa Monica EXTERNAL City Council Members , Please note my strong objection to any sort of requirement for a vaccine passport anywhere in Santa Monica. Surely you must realize that such a mandate would not only be totally unconstitutional—a deprivation of rights given us by god AND by our Constitution, but that it is nonsensical and certainly of no use in curbing sickness and death by covid called illness. Not only is the covid virus weakened now—as all viruses tend to be after 1 or 2 years, so that vaccines are of no use, but the vaccines contain harmful protein spikes and other ingredients opposed to free health—even causing blood clotting in brain and heart. There is enormous information –not misinformation such as we get from the mainstream media and from Big Pharma, which is only concerned with its profits —but real information that reports on deaths from the vaccine as greater than any benefit!!!!! Do not be guilty of bringing this dictatorial mandate or any sort of vaccine passport into our City of Santa Monica. Sincerely, Eloise Krivosheia Item 13.G 01/11/21 358 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4510 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: NO to VACCINE PASSPORTS Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:13:51 PM -----Original Message----- From: MADELINE MCFADDEN <madmcfad@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:00 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Joseph Lawrence <Joseph.Lawrence@santamonica.gov> Subject: NO to VACCINE PASSPORTS EXTERNAL Dear Council Members, You have the opportunity tonight to show REAL leadership and act on behalf of the citizens who elected you by voting against vaccine passports. American citizens want freedom, fairness and some common sense. Vaccine passports are none of the above. They will hurt businesses, they will treat citizens who placed their trust in you like criminals and most importantly, they fly in the face of the provisions in our Constitution. I will pray for you tonight that your consciousness guides you in your decision making. Vote like your political careers depend on it—they do. Vote NO on vaccine passports. Regards, Madeline McFadden Item 13.G 01/11/21 359 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4511 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: LA"s Vaccination Mandate Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:13:37 PM -----Original Message----- From: Carol Dickinson <caroldickinson@verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:58 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: LA's Vaccination Mandate EXTERNAL Dear Mayor Himmelrich and City Council, Please vote tonight to align Santa Monica’s vaccination mandate with that of the city of Los Angeles. This will help ;protect the residents and workers in Santa Monica. Thank you for your concern. Sincerely, Carol Dickinson 1030 25th St. Santa Monica 90403 Item 13.G 01/11/21 360 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4512 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:13:31 PM From: Amy Woodson-Boulton <woodson.boulton@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:04 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Re: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica Dear City Council Members, I am writing to indicate my support for implementing a vaccine mandate for those entering certain indoor establishments in Santa Monica. I support a full mandate, with as few exemptions as legally possible. For example, I do not agree with a religious exemption. Similarly, if testing is permitted to allow access by the unvaccinated, it must be a PCR test. Best, Amy Woodson-Boulton Luke Boulton Item 13.G 01/11/21 361 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4513 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I oppose agenda item #13G VAX passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:13:25 PM From: Steve Clark <humr@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:05 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: I oppose agenda item #13G VAX passports EXTERNAL Dear council member, I wholeheartedly oppose agenda item #13G VAX passports. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of Item 13.G 01/11/21 362 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4514 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. When the dust settles... we will all find that these mandates are unconstitutional, immoral and un- American. Just as with the guards at Auschwitz who claim they were just following orders... those of you who are complicit in these crimes against humanity will be brought to severe justice. I suggest you get on the right side now if only to save your own soul. Sincerely, STEVE CLARK 1111 Hicrest Rd., Glendora, Ca. 91741 Item 13.G 01/11/21 363 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4515 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passports or Mandates Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:13:21 PM From: Kyle Finch <kyle@beloveapparel.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:07 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passports or Mandates EXTERNAL Dear Council, Any vaccine mandate is anti-science and should be absolutely rejected. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Item 13.G 01/11/21 364 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4516 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) You must reject any vaccine mandates or vaccine passports. Sincerely, Kyle Finch Be Love Co-Founder kyle@beloveapparel.com www.beloveapparel.com p 310-593-4157 c 323-301-2823 Item 13.G 01/11/21 365 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4517 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Maria Loya To:councilmtgitems; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Lana Negrete;Kristen.mccowan@santamonica.gov; Oscar de la Torre; David White Subject:Agenda Item 13 G. Santa Monica Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:08:51 PM EXTERNAL Dear City Councilmembers and City Manager White, I’m writing as a long term resident of Santa Monica, a mother and a neighborhood activist to express my concerns and disagreement about an executive order to implement a vaccine passport in Santa Monica. I realize that we have all been affected by COVID virus and I know we have experienced collective trauma. However as City leaders we expect you to consider all of the impacts that a vaccine passport will have on our city resources however this policy doesn’t seem to do that at all. We have learned a lot about COVID virus and the vaccine. We have learned that if you are vaccinated you can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Covid vaccine passports don’t work to limit transmission of the COVID virus so only works to create a false sense of security against contracting the virus. As you discuss and deliberate on your vote, I urge you to please consider the following questions. 1. What about the budget impact or the diversion of precious resources such as SMPD to enforce such a mandate? We are in the process of an economic recovery. How much is this policy going to cost Santa Monica? 2. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? 3. Will this divert resources and the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety and addressing homelessness? 4. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA? 5. Will this policy hurt the local businesses and undermine the economic recovery effort that you all have been working on. Your job as City leaders is to bring us together. Yet this Vaccine Passport policy creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. Your assumption that vaccinated residents will support a vaccine passport is wrong! Many that are vaccinated don’t support vaccine mandates or vaccine passports because we know that it undermines the trust for the vaccine. We voted for you to be good stewards of our public dollars and this policy only works to put Item 13.G 01/11/21 366 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4518 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) the City of Santa Monica in legal jeopardy and draining our public dollars. This policy requires residents and visitors to provide proof of COVID vaccination or be denied entry to private and public locations along with services to individuals that are unvaccinated. Does this policy violate HIPA? The policy requires residents and visitors to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy. Vaccination cards are considered medical records and employees are going to be put in a position to demand vaccination papers which seems to be a violation of HIPA. This policy seems to violate various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. Can the City of Santa Monica afford to use public funds to pay for more legal fees? Santa Monica City Council should deny a vaccine passport and focus on addressing the issues affecting Santa Monica residents such as public safety, homelessness, creating access to real affordable housing and economic recovery. Thank you for taking the time to consider my thoughts, questions and concerns on this issue. Maria Loya Item 13.G 01/11/21 367 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4519 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Clerk Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I SUPPORT a Santa Monica city-wide indoor vaccine mandate Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:07:36 PM From: Hilary Galanoy <hilbilly7@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:49 PM To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: I SUPPORT a Santa Monica city-wide indoor vaccine mandate EXTERNAL I am a 6 1/2 year resident of Santa Monica, and I support a Santa Monica City-wide vaccine mandate for indoor activities like dining. I have been concerned for months that we don't have one in our wonderful city and are literally inviting unvaccinated people from Los Angeles to flood our restaurants and businesses, since there are no restrictions and they won't be asked for proof of vaccination. This article from today's New York Times is proof that the unvaccinated are prolonging this pandemic: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/briefing/omicron-deaths-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated.html My 23-year-old stepson works in a popular Santa Monica restaurant as a line cook. While he is tripled vaccinated, I am greatly bothered is he put at a higher risk of catching Covid than his peer at an LA City- based restaurant that requires proof of vaccination. (And, in turn, exposing me and his father.) I know the Council is meeting on this very issue tonight, January 11th. Please vote YES on the indoor vaccine mandates and keep the residents of our city safe! Best, Hilary Galanoy 2636 32nd Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Item 13.G 01/11/21 368 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4520 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Steve Clark To:councilmtgitems Subject:I oppose agenda item #13G VAX passports. Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:03:54 PM EXTERNAL Dear council member, I wholeheartedly oppose agenda item #13G VAX passports. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Item 13.G 01/11/21 369 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4521 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. When the dust settles... we will all find that these mandates are unconstitutional, immoral and un- American. Just as with the guards at Auschwitz who claim they were just following orders... those of you who are complicit in these crimes against humanity will be brought to severe justice. I suggest you get on the right side now if only to save your own soul. Sincerely, STEVE CLARK 1111 Hicrest Rd., Glendora, Ca. 91741 Item 13.G 01/11/21 370 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4522 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:14:33 PM From: Margaret Goldenberg <margaretgoldenberg@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:51 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@santamonica.gov>; Phil Brock <Phil.Brock@santamonica.gov>; Christine Parra <Christine.Parra@santamonica.gov>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@santamonica.gov>; Lana Negrete <Lana.Negrete@santamonica.gov>; Kristin McCowan <Kristin.McCowan@santamonica.gov>; Oscar de la Torre <Oscar.delaTorre@santamonica.gov>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov>; Joseph Lawrence <Joseph.Lawrence@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passports EXTERNAL NO VACCINE PASSPORTS! 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Item 13.G 01/11/21 371 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4523 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Steve Clark To:councilmtgitems Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White; Joseph Lawrence Subject:I Strongly oppose agenda item #13G VAX passports. Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:14:24 PM EXTERNAL Dear council member, I wholeheartedly oppose agenda item #13G VAX passports. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. Item 13.G 01/11/21 372 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4524 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. When the dust settles... we will all find that these mandates are unconstitutional, immoral and un- American. Just as with the guards at Auschwitz who claim they were just following orders... those of you who are complicit in these crimes against humanity will be brought to severe justice. I suggest you get on the right side now if only to save your own soul. VOTE NO ON THIS agenda item #13G Sincerely, STEVE CLARK 1111 Hicrest Rd., Glendora, Ca. 91741 Item 13.G 01/11/21 373 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4525 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I oppose vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:14:23 PM From: Judy Frankel <judyfrankel@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:55 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: I oppose vaccine passports EXTERNAL SM Council, I vehemently oppose vaccine passports for many reasons. This is a small representative sample of reasons: 1. It would essentially create an apartheid against people who, for whatever reason, have decided not to partake in the experimental vaccine program. These vaccines have not been tested and proven safe against reproductive harm, or long-term harms of the major organs and systems of the body. We simply do not know what effect these untested, unproven mRNA vaccines have over the long term, and especially when given one after another after another (read: boosters). The cumulative effect of the body reproducing spike protein in the spleen, heart, lungs, and reproductive organs, as is shown in distribution studies and now in autopsies of people who died after vaccination, is still a mystery.2. It will be nearly impossible to regain our freedoms from such a "passport."Imagine how many boosters and other vaccines will be added in order to maintainyour freedoms. This is just the beginning of what I see as the imposition of fanaticalcontrol of our bodies and freedom by outside entities, whether businesses likepharma or governments/tech and their control of access to basic liberties.3. Congress passed two major laws that leave vaccine manufacturers free from anyand all liability. Therefore, no matter how shoddy their products, no matter howmuch harm they cause, they are not responsible. These two laws have set up aslippery slope toward unintentional or negligent abuse of the public's health.4. Those who have caught Covid have natural immunity and do not need vaccination.Indeed, they are at greater risk of vaccine injury than those who have not had Covid.They should not be required to vaccinate in order to participate in society.5. Vaccine passports violate our basic rights as enumerated in our Constitution.6. Vaccine passports would place an unrealistic burden on businesses, and wouldcause loss of patronage if only those with passports are allowed access. Businesseswill suffer. Thank you for considering these problems and voting NO on vaccine passports!Sincerely,Judy Frankel Judy Item 13.G 01/11/21 374 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4526 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 375 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4527 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:14:15 PM -----Original Message----- From: Olga Hernandez <holga63@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:56 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine passport EXTERNAL I am against a Vaccine Passport This vaccine is still in EUA. This Vaccine doesn’t stop the spread and has a 99.9973% survive rate of recovery if you are infected. Stop the fear mongering it not about the Vaccine it’s about control. Do the right thing say No to Vaccine Passports This is America not China. God bless America land of the Free. Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 376 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4528 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:14:10 PM -----Original Message----- From: Kat Blandino <katblandino@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:57 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Dear honorable city council elected officials, I write to you as a fully vaccinated resident of Santa Monica and the parent of fully vaccinated SMMUSD students aged 6 and 11. I urge you to pause and take stock of what our community most needs right now. SMPD are understaffed and overwhelmed because many are choosing their right to medical freedom. The same with our fire department and our nurses and doctors. Our hospitals are not overwhelmed. In two years this virus and it’s health effects has evolved. We must evolve also. Vilifying and segregating a portion of our community is not the way through this. It is optics, a seemingly easy answer to divert from the real issues facing our beloved city. I urge you to think rationally and evaluate the medical evidence above politics. There has been an inexcusable lack of federal and state guidance towards local elected officials on how to approach issues the last two years. I do not envy your position. I do however implore you to listen and act in the best interest of our city and it’s residents. Vote no on a vaccination passport. I thank you for your service during this difficult time. Kat Blandino Sent from my iPhone Item 13.G 01/11/21 377 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4529 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:mentzer1 To:councilmtgitems Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White; Joseph Lawrence Subject:13G on Tonight"s City Council agenda Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:14:01 PM EXTERNAL I urge you to vote no on the vaccine passport idea. It is anti-American to require documentation to use/visit anywhere within our country. The passport idea is outdated anyway, as the vaccines do not have pharmaceutical reflectivity for the Omicron variant. Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. Item 13.G 01/11/21 378 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4530 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:14:00 PM From: Lisa Kim <lisahy@me.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 3:58 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Dear City Council Members, I am writing to indicate my support for implementing a vaccine mandate for those entering certain indoor establishments in Santa Monica. I support a full mandate, with as few exemptions as legally possible. For example, I do not agree with a religious exemption. Similarly, if testing is permitted to allow access by the unvaccinated, it must be a PCR test. Best, Lisa Kim Santa Monica Resident. Item 13.G 01/11/21 379 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4531 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Mark Elliot To:councilmtgitems Subject:Agenda G 13 Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:14:59 PM EXTERNAL Dear Council person, My name is Mark Elliot and I am opposed to Agenda G 13. This is avery bad idea and I strongly urge you to not pass it please. Thank you for your time. Mark Item 13.G 01/11/21 380 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4532 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Peggy Fisher To:councilmtgitems Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White; Joseph Lawrence; Kristin McCowan Subject:13G – OPPOSE vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:08:07 PM EXTERNAL To the Santa Monica City Council, I do not support implementing a vaccine passport. It is illegal. It is coercion. Your policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents and customers that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents and customers to get vaccinated thereby using a system of coercion. This is illegal under 8 felony statutes. Are you truly interested in creating a civil violation of the law; namely, 21 Code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, and 18 US Code section 2331 ?Under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, it states it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Through US Law, the Nuremberg Code is thus embraced. Defined under 18 US Code section 2331 and subsection 802, domestic terrorism is when a ciitizen or governmentis forced to do something. Forcing a citizen or government to do something is not only coercion but also domestic terrorism. It is illegal to coerce the population, it is a felony that bears a 99 year prison term and up to $100 million fine for an institution, which you would be liable for upon implementing such a passport. Should you neglectto re-examine this path, to my knowledge, there are 8 felony statutes associated with such a liability. Sincerely, Peggy Fisher Item 13.G 01/11/21 381 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4533 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WIRE FRAUD IS REAL. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know isvalid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. Real estate agents are independentcontractor sales associates, not employees. Owned by a subsidiary of Realogy Brokerage Group LL Samantha Binah, REALTOR® 29178 Heathercliff Rd, Malibu CA90265 C. 310.266.7221 CA DRE: #02062681 sbinah@gmail.com https://www.samanthabinah.com/ Awards From:Samantha Binah To:councilmtgitems Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; Joseph Lawrence Subject:Are Vaccine passports a good idea? Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:49:37 PM EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council Members, I strongly oppose a vaccine passport system. I believe it will create discrimination and a 2- party system.I believe any form of discrimination goes against the values of this beautiful state. If a vaccine passport is implemented I will no longer frequent restaurants or any business inSanta Monica. Please vote no on vaccine passports. Sincerely, Samantha Binah -- Item 13.G 01/11/21 382 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4534 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Sabra Chili To:councilmtgitems Cc:Jacobs Scott Subject:Vax Passport Meeting Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:45:18 PM EXTERNAL January 11, 2022 Comes now, before these Worthy Parties, Notice, Knowledge, Facts and Opinions such that may affect their deliberations and behavior. Recognizing that Rank and Position bring along with them Isolation and Control by underlings and minions via information control, We, the People, present you with information critical to your thinking. —Times Have Changed— Time changed when the CCP released the covid bioweapon in 2019. Devolution is active (see below). We the People are learning the facts. 1. Fauci is toast. Incarceration is likely in his future. 2. CDC has lost all credibility. NIH is close behind. 3. Sotomayor, attempting to support the covid narrative with disinformation (lies), is costing the Supreme Court in its credibility. The People will not accede to a corrupt decision. 4. The release of the CDC information shows that neither Santa Monica nor the State of California had a pandemic. It can now be established scientifically, and in court, that all the measures taken by CA State government had no positive effect on the bioweapon/disease and were negatively impacting the citizens and businesses of CA State. Litigation Item 13.G 01/11/21 383 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4535 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) en masse is expected as a result, both against individuals and government agencies. Connections to the CCP are expected to pierce the veil of protection for government employees and elected officials when this is challenged in Courts of Law. (See Devolution below). 5. As the Covid Pandemic narrative fails, the perfidy and treason is being exposed. Real news outlets are providing Citizens of CA State and City of Santa Monica information about such tyrannous codes. 6. Measures such as Vaccine 'passports' and other methods of controlling the Populace through corrupted 'health codes' have produced the events now emerging in Kazakhstan where the elected, and employed officials are being assaulted, their houses burnt to the ground, and their property seized. There are reports of many of them fleeing, as well as their extended families being persecuted. Risks rise in times of War. Each vote can have dire consequences for ALL involved. 7. In order to assist you in overcoming the difficulties of filtered information in this modern age, I will be sending emails such as this periodically, and as manifesting events may warrant. Devolution As the CCP released a bioweapon in 2019, the USA is at War. This Act of War changed all status, legal, perceived, and real, on that day. It is assumed by We, the People, that, as a Legislator, your understanding of our common, shared, reality is controlled by the minions who 'serve' you. Your handlers have likely not shared the Devolution information with you. Here is a link to encapsulated description of Devolution that may assist your thinking for the Immediate, and Long term future. We are at War. Every action Item 13.G 01/11/21 384 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4536 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) and decision and Vote will have significant and serious consequences. Patel Patriot’s Devolution Series Devolution On January 20th, 2021, President Donald Trump delivered his final speech at Joint Base Andrews before boarding Air Force One, leaving the Presidency and the fate of America in the corrupt hands of Joe Biden and his handlers. Like many, I was devastated and even more so, I was confused. It was obvious that the election of 2020 was rife with fraud even th… Read more Sabra Chili Item 13.G 01/11/21 385 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4537 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Nicole Amersfoort To:councilmtgitems Subject:Vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:40:41 PM EXTERNAL Businesses are already struggling within the city due to not only a lack in tourism but the fact that so many businesses have shuddered their doors permanently and there are no businesses coming in to replace those empty commercial buildings should be a major concern. 3rd street has always been a draw for outsiders to come shop within the city and it currently looks like a ghost town. So many businesses have closed down with no one to fill the void. You have to ask yourself why and what we can do to get back to the city of Santa Monica that we once prided ourselves in. The current data that we have coupled with the omicron variant spreading rampant among vaccinated and non vaccinated Is proof that the vaccine does nothing to provide a safer environment as we have seen the vaccine does not stop the vaccinated person from getting or spreading the virus especially the newest strains. Getting vaccinated is a choice that is between an individual and their doctors. So ask yourself ,how does being vaccinated help provide a safer environment for the city when the vaccine doesn’t stop the spread? It doesn’t. Only a negative test result could help slow the spread since the vaccinated are not protected against getting and spreading the virus anymore than a non vaccinated person is. And the negative test results aren’t the answer either cause the pcr test has to be taken too many days before to even get the results in time. This is not the answer to keeping Santa Monica alive when businesses are already leaving the city in droves. The city is on a downhill decline and adding more restrictions will only cause a further decline in tourism and in keeping businesses staying afloat. A concerned citizen Item 13.G 01/11/21 386 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4538 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Debra Jean To:councilmtgitems Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White; Joseph Lawrence Subject:13G – OPPOSE vaccine passports Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:32:41 PM EXTERNAL This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Thank you. Debra Rawdin Item 13.G 01/11/21 387 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4539 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:22:46 PM From: Julie Ginsberg <ginsbergjc@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:59 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Dear City Council Members, I am writing to indicate my support for implementing a vaccine mandate for those entering certain indoor establishments in Santa Monica. I support a full mandate, with as few exemptions as legally possible. For example, I do not agree with a religious exemption. Similarly, if testing is permitted to allow access by the unvaccinated, it must be a PCR test. Best, Julie Ginsberg (Santa Monica Resident) Item 13.G 01/11/21 388 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4540 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccine Passports are unconstitutional and illegal under capitalism Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:22:39 PM From: Miriam Fogler <miriamld.mf@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:11 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccine Passports are unconstitutional and illegal under capitalism EXTERNAL To the Honorable City Council of Santa Monica, We as human being have the God given right to go anywhere we the people are guranteed freedom. The people running these business will be deeply impacted losing customers will go else where to dine. Its infringement against the Hippa law and The Nurenberg Laws. This isnt China but you want to make China Communist Rule. Were Not Complying. Not obeying mandates for a right to choose, you might us well force the shot in peoples arms without freedom of choice. Then you have no right to an Abortion. No right to be free. Build your concentration camps. Go watch Don't Look Up. See how much you love what your about to do unless you wake up and don't take freedom away and allow our country to be America land of the Free. Please stand with us vote fhis down. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Miriam Sinc Item 13.G 01/11/21 389 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4541 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: vaccine mandate for santa monica restaurants Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:22:35 PM From: Lisa sepe-wiesenfeld <lisaswlaw@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:11 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: vaccine mandate for santa monica restaurants EXTERNAL I am in favor of vaccine mandate in restaurants. thank you. Item 13.G 01/11/21 390 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4542 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: No Vaccine Passports -- Our Businesses Have Suffered Too Much Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:19:09 PM From: Vik Rubenfeld <vik@vlr.cc> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:13 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: No Vaccine Passports -- Our Businesses Have Suffered Too Much EXTERNAL Dear Honorable Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am writing to implore you to pass no vaccine passport legislation for our city. Our businesses here have suffered too much from the shutdowns and riots.Santa Monica is still struggling to recover. Vaccine passports would reduce revenue to these businesses, placing a foot ontheir neck when they are just trying to get back up. The variant most people are getting these days is Omicron, and the vaccineshave never been tested against Omicron, because Omicron didn’t exist before. Please show how much you care for the people and residents of Santa Monica,by choosing to pass no vaccine passport legislation. With Respect, -Vik RubenfeldSanta Monica Item 13.G 01/11/21 391 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4543 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Richard Clarke Larsen To:councilmtgitems Cc:Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre; Gleam Davis; David White; Joseph Lawrence Subject:13G Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:15:37 PM EXTERNAL Please oppose item 13G, the vaccine mandate. It is bad policy, is bad for the city and bad for the people. It leaves Santa Monica open to a slew of law suits since violates people's constitutional and civil rights. Santa Monica can't afford any more law suits. It is unnecessary as 88.7% of Santa Monica residents are vaccinated. That only leaves about 10,500 who are not. And since 10,245 have had the virus (as of January 4th) and would have immunity, that leaves a very small portion of residents vulnerable. Of course, there could be Breakthroughs of Omicron, but since the symptoms from Omicron are relatively mild (only one death in the US has been linked to Omicron per Jorge Casuso of the Santa Monica Outlook) I'm not sure what everyone is concerned about. What it does do though is keep people from outside the city who might not be fully vaccinated from using our businesses, which reduces their revenue, which in turn reduces the tax base. More law suits, less taxes to pay for those law suits, doesn't seem like a good idea. In addition, the vaccine mandate has been in place in LA since Thanksgiving and it hasn't helped. Please use common sense and oppose item 13 G. Thank you, Richard Larsen Item 13.G 01/11/21 392 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4544 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: VACCINE PASSPORTS Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:15:17 PM From: emma sharp <emmafrancessharp@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:15 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: VACCINE PASSPORTS EXTERNAL You Must vote no on this. Vaccine passports represent a huge infringement on civil liberty andare unconstitutional. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVIDvaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention ofSMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s Item 13.G 01/11/21 393 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4545 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second- class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services toresidents based on a medical procedure. Item 13.G 01/11/21 394 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4546 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica V-Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:24:45 PM From: Tiffany A <eyesonlovely@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:36 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Santa Monica V-Passport EXTERNAL Hello, As a born and raised Angeleno, I think California is one of the most beautiful places to live. However, encroachments onto personal Liberty and freedom are never acceptable. Whether one resides in Texas OR California, we are all Americans born with certain unalienable rights. Because of these fundamental rights, I do not support ANY resolution to enact ANY implementation of vax passports. In addition, it has been proven repeatedly that the vaccinated are still getting the virus again AND are spreading it. Further, scientists state the viral load of those who are vaccinated is significantly higher than those unvaccinated. Thus, the concept of a passport to ‘slow the spread’ is 100% false and is based on a 100% faulty premise. To sum, such a passport is not only unmerited based ON SCIENCE, but it is segregationist, discriminatory and a direct violation of every American’s constitutional rights. NO ON THE VAX PASSPORT. Item 13.G 01/11/21 395 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4547 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Samantha Binah, REALTOR® 29178 Heathercliff Rd, Malibu CA90265 C. 310.266.7221 CA DRE: #02062681sbinah@gmail.comhttps://www.samanthabinah.com/ Awards From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Are Vaccine Passports a good idea? Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:24:41 PM From: Samantha Binah <sbinah@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:39 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Are Vaccine Passports a good idea? EXTERNAL Dear Santa Monica City Council Members, I strongly oppose a vaccine passport system. I believe it will create discrimination and a 2-party system. As a women of color, I believe any form of discrimination goes against the values of this beautiful state. If a vaccine passport is implemented I will no longer frequent restaurants or any business in Santa Monica. Please vote no on vaccine passports. Sincerely, Samantha Binah -- Item 13.G 01/11/21 396 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4548 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WIRE FRAUD IS REAL. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind aparty to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. Real estate agents are independent contractor sales associates, not employees. Owned by a subsidiary of Realogy Brokerage Group LL Item 13.G 01/11/21 397 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4549 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Opposition to City Council Agenda Item 13G Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:24:29 PM From: Sharon Kotas <kotas.sharon@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:36 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Opposition to City Council Agenda Item 13G EXTERNAL Good evening, I am writing to express my opposition to Agenda Item 13G as well as my concerns about the City of Santa Monica trying to implement this unconstitutional abuse of power. This policy will create legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. New York's vaccine passport has failed, as you can see their cases have more than doubled even with the vaccine passport in place. Vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit the virus, so excluding one group of citizens from society is not the answer to slowing the spread of COVID. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slowing down transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. This is creating a second class of citizens as well. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPAA. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to "incentivize and force" residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. I urge you to please reconsider this policy and to vote in opposition of this. May God bless you. Thank you, Sharon Kotas Item 13.G 01/11/21 398 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4550 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose G13 Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:24:10 PM From: Gloria Dickey <gdickey21@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:37 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Gloria Dickey <gdickey21@yahoo.com> Subject: Oppose G13 EXTERNAL I do not want this vaccine mandate to be passed in Santa Monica period!!!! Item 13.G 01/11/21 399 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4551 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Oppose G13 Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:24:04 PM From: Gloria Dickey <gdickey21@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:45 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Gloria Dickey <gdickey21@yahoo.com> Subject: Fw: Oppose G13 EXTERNAL Correction on mandate sent 13.G not G13. Opposing it for Santa Monica. Enough is enough!!!!!!! ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Gloria Dickey <gdickey21@yahoo.com> To: council@smgov.net <council@smgov.net> Cc: Gloria Dickey <gdickey21@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 04:36:44 PM PSTSubject: Oppose G13 I do not want this vaccine mandate to be passed in Santa Monica period!!!! Item 13.G 01/11/21 400 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4552 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Santa Monica Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:23:55 PM From: Anita Garatie <a_garatie@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:45 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Please don not pass the bill for vaccine passports. It is not only violation of HIPPA laws but it does not stop the spread of covid. Thank you. Anita Garatie Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Item 13.G 01/11/21 401 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4553 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:24:50 PM From: Karen Snook <kpsnook999@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:24 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: City Council Agenda Item 13.G Santa Monica Vaccine Passport EXTERNAL Since the Covid vaccines do not stop infection or transmission of the disease, what is the point of a vaccine passport? It will not stop anyone from getting the disease. And, most likely, it will give vaccinated people a false sense of security so they will be more likely to behave in risky ways. But really, what value is there in the passport system since it will not stop or slow the progression of the disease? I can understand that if you are under the false impression that the vaccine somehow gives you immunity, you might think a vaccine passport is a good idea. But if you are under that delusion, it is long past time that you disabuse yourself of that. Read the actual science from the CDC. If you know that the vaccines do not stop infection or transmission, then what are you actually trying to achieve with this system? And, once established, how many boosters will be required to pass? And then, over time, what other communicable diseases will everyone have to be vaccinated from to be able to shop, or go to restaurants etc.? The flu? Tuberculosis? HIV? Where will it end? Or are we to become a society segregated by medical identity? An ever shifting landscape of who is OK and who is not based on what injections they have had recently? Are we really going to be owned by the pharmaceutical companies and do you want to be complicit in that scheme? We are watching and will be voting accordingly. Sincerely, Karen Snook Item 13.G 01/11/21 402 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4554 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: The right of Freedom - my body my choice NO TO VACCINE MANDATES Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:25:21 PM Attachments:MODERNA FDA FACT SHEET.pdf From: Diana Peters <dianatpeters@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:31 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Fwd: The right of Freedom - my body my choice NO TO VACCINE MANDATES EXTERNAL Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Lisa Christine <lisa.christine10@yahoo.com> Date: January 11, 2022 at 3:31:24 PM PST To: Diana Peters <dianatpeters@gmail.com>, Stephanie Dubrovner <charging_norths@yahoo.com>, inetteberger@gmail.com Subject: Fw: The right of Freedom - my body my choice NO TO VACCINE MANDATES ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Lisa Christine <lisa.christine10@yahoo.com> To: council@smgov.net <council@smgov.net>; David.White@santamonica.gov <david.white@santamonica.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022, 03:20:10 PM PST Subject: The right of Freedom - my body my choice NO TO VACCINE MANDATES I STRONGLY oppose any vaccine mandate everywhere. On top of the stated position below, I add my own research to this argument in favor of personal choice of what we put in our bodies and limitations set on our businesses. Arguments against the SM-V Passport. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. Item 13.G 01/11/21 403 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4555 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security AND A BLATANT LIE in facts. The double jab does not protect ANYONE after 10 weeks and rapidly declines even further after that putting businesses as risk with contagious vaccinated customers that further spread the disease. After Booster shot is given, zero protection of original 2 shots, the protection is less than 37% based on CDC's own statistics as of January 2021 of protection against severe illness and death and does not stop transmission at all as it is not intended to lower viral load. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. Will I be allowed to ask if any of my patrons have STDs, diagnosed with cancer and are going through Chemotherapy treatments that put them at risk in any community environment, HIV infected? Can I discriminate based on EVERY risk a patron might contaminate my business? 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Vaccinated and Unvaccinated have the exact same opportunity to pass on this virus. With the factual knowledge that this is true and stated as such by the CDC, any passport voted on would be for ulterior motives that are NOT in the best interest of health, community, and safety. It is about control. This will NEVER slow the spread of the virus and it is a proven fact. . The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. If you vote to implement this vaccine passport which requires MULTIPLE sources of IDENTIFICATION which will in turn allow you to vote in favor or VOTING IDENTIFICATION as well showing you support that all individuals have and can show identification in order to participate in ANY AND ALL activities in Santa Monica/Los Angeles/California. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Over a million US citizens have been injured caused by this vaccine (VAERS). MANY (not able to keep up factual numbers because they change so quickly) have lost their lives to these experimental, untested, unproven vaccines to do ANYTHING they intended to do except make BIG PHARMA huge profits. Will Santa Monica be liable for any and all injuries and deaths forcing their residents and patrons of Santa Monica Businesses to take a dangerous, experimental, UNAPPROVED by FDA ...let me say this again, THERE IS NO FDA APPROVED VACCINE FOR COVID19 that has gone through rigorous trials NOR IS THERE ANY VACCINE CREATED FOR THE STOPPING OF INFECTION OF THIS VIRUS. As listed on FDA fact sheet for all three vaccines: Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The possible side effects of the vaccine are still being studied in clinical trials. No blind testing is being done. Death, neurological damage, POTTS disease, myocarditis, pericarditis, giillian barre Item 13.G 01/11/21 404 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4556 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) syndrome, permanent physical disabilities too many to list, and many more that i cannot even list them all. How can you consider MANDATING a vaccine that does nothing to stop the spread of the virus and its continued mutations??? Absurd to consider really. PLEASE open attachment and please actually READ what it says. Informed consent is required bylaw and every human should be allowed to consent or reject consent to possible life long injuries. Nor are you considering natural immunity for millions of people who have contracted, survived andnow have immunity GREATER than that of vaccines. AND if one decides to "change their mind" and get the vaccines, do they have to wait a year to getall three shots (and then additional required boosters every six months) to catch up to shop, eat, orhave personal services? That would ENCOURAGE greatly to NOT get the vaccine protocol startedat all because it wouldn't matter anyway. Last thing to consider - early treatments being withheld by our government that wouldactually reduce transmission, serious side effects from covid and vaccines, and death. Wehave exponentially increased the deathsof covid in 2021 after vaccines than we had before vaccines. Time to wake up and studyfacts. Item 13.G 01/11/21 405 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4557 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) FACT SHEET FOR RECIPIENTS AND CAREGIVERS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) OF THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE TO PREVENT CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) IN INDIVIDUALS 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER You are being offered the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2. This Fact Sheet contains information to help you understand the risks and benefits of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, which you may receive because there is currently a pandemic of COVID-19. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is a vaccine and may prevent you from getting COVID-19. Read this Fact Sheet for information about the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Talk to the vaccination provider if you have questions. It is your choice to receive the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has received EUA from FDA to provide: •a two-dose primary series to individuals 18 years of age and older; •a third primary series dose to individuals 18 years of age and older who have beendetermined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise; •a single booster dose to the individuals 18 years of age and older who have completed a primary series with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine; and •a single booster dose to individuals 18 years of age and older who have completedprimary vaccination with a different authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine may not protect everyone. This Fact Sheet may have been updated. For the most recent Fact Sheet, please visit www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW BEFORE YOU GET THIS VACCINE WHAT IS COVID-19? COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. This type of coronavirus has not been seen before. You can get COVID-19 through contact with another person who has the virus. It is predominantly a respiratory illness that can affect other organs. People with COVID- 19 have had a wide range of symptoms reported, ranging from mild symptoms to severe illness. Symptoms may appear 2 to 14 days after exposure to the virus. Symptoms may include: fever or chills; cough; shortness of breath; fatigue; muscle or body aches; headache; new loss of taste or smell; sore throat; congestion or runny nose; nausea or vomiting; diarrhea. Item 13.G 01/11/21 406 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4558 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WHAT IS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine that may prevent COVID-19. The FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). For more information on EUA, see the “What is an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)?” section at the end of this Fact Sheet. WHAT SHOULD YOU MENTION TO YOUR VACCINATION PROVIDER BEFORE YOU GET THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? Tell your vaccination provider about all of your medical conditions, including if you: •have any allergies •have had myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) or pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) •have a fever •have a bleeding disorder or are on a blood thinner •are immunocompromised or are on a medicine that affects your immune system •are pregnant or plan to become pregnant •are breastfeeding •have received another COVID-19 vaccine •have ever fainted in association with an injection WHO SHOULD GET THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? FDA has authorized the emergency use of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine in individuals 18 years of age and older. WHO SHOULD NOT GET THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? You should not get the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine if you: •had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of this vaccine •had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient of this vaccine WHAT ARE THE INGREDIENTS IN THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine contains the following ingredients: messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), lipids (SM-102, polyethylene glycol [PEG] 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol [DMG], cholesterol, and 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine [DSPC]), tromethamine, tromethamine hydrochloride, acetic acid, sodium acetate trihydrate, and sucrose. HOW IS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE GIVEN? The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine will be given to you as an injection into the muscle. Primary Series: The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is administered as a 2-dose series, one month apart. A third primary series dose may be administered at least one month after the second dose to individuals who are determined to have certain kinds of immunocompromise. Item 13.G 01/11/21 407 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4559 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Booster Dose: •A single booster dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine may be administered at least 5 months after completion of a primary series of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine inindividuals 18 years of age and older. •A single booster dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine may be administered toindividuals 18 years of age and older who have completed primary vaccination with a different authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccine. Please check with your healthcareprovider regarding timing of the booster dose. HAS THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE BEEN USED BEFORE? The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is an unapproved vaccine. In clinical trials, approximately 15,400 individuals 18 years of age and older have received at least 1 dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Millions of individuals have received the vaccine under EUA since December 18, 2020. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? In an ongoing clinical trial, the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has been shown to prevent COVID-19 following 2 doses given 1 month apart. The duration of protection against COVID-19 is currently unknown. WHAT ARE THE RISKS OF THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? There is a remote chance that the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine could cause a severe allergic reaction. A severe allergic reaction would usually occur within a few minutes to one hour after getting a dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. For this reason, your vaccination provider may ask you to stay at the place where you received your vaccine for monitoring after vaccination. Signs of a severe allergic reaction can include: •Difficulty breathing •Swelling of your face and throat •A fast heartbeat •A bad rash all over your body •Dizziness and weakness Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) have occurred in some people who have received the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, more commonly in males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. In most of these people, symptoms began within a few days following receipt of the second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The chance of having this occur is very low. You should seek medical attention right away if you have any of the following symptoms after receiving the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine: •Chest pain •Shortness of breath •Feelings of having a fast-beating, fluttering, or pounding heart Side effects that have been reported in clinical trials with the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine include: •Injection site reactions: pain, tenderness and swelling of the lymph nodes in the same arm Item 13.G 01/11/21 408 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4560 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) of the injection, swelling (hardness), and redness •General side effects: fatigue, headache, muscle pain, joint pain, chills, nausea and vomiting, fever, and rash Side effects that have been reported during post-authorization use of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine include: •Severe allergic reactions •Myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) •Pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart) •Fainting in association with injection of the vaccineThese may not be all the possible side effects of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Serious and unexpected side effects may occur. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is still being studied in clinical trials. WHAT SHOULD I DO ABOUT SIDE EFFECTS? If you experience a severe allergic reaction, call 9-1-1, or go to the nearest hospital. Call the vaccination provider or your healthcare provider if you have any side effects that bother you or do not go away. Report vaccine side effects to FDA/CDC Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The VAERS toll-free number is 1-800-822-7967 or report online to https://vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html. Please include “Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine EUA” in the first line of box #18 of the report form. In addition, you can report side effects to ModernaTX, Inc. at 1-866-MODERNA (1-866-663-3762). You may also be given an option to enroll in v-safe. V-safe is a new voluntary smartphone-based tool that uses text messaging and web surveys to check in with people who have been vaccinated to identify potential side effects after COVID-19 vaccination. V-safe asks questions that help CDC monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. V-safe also provides second-dose reminders if needed and live telephone follow-up by CDC if participants report a significant health impact following COVID-19 vaccination. For more information on how to sign up, visit: www.cdc.gov/vsafe. WHAT IF I DECIDE NOT TO GET THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? It is your choice to receive or not receive the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care. ARE OTHER CHOICES AVAILABLE FOR PREVENTING COVID-19 BESIDES MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE? Another choice for preventing COVID-19 is Comirnaty, an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine. Other vaccines to prevent COVID-19 may be available under Emergency Use Authorization. Item 13.G 01/11/21 409 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4561 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) CAN I RECEIVE THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE AT THE SAME TIME AS OTHER VACCINES? Data have not yet been submitted to FDA on administration of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine at the same time as other vaccines. If you are considering receiving Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine with other vaccines, discuss your options with your healthcare provider. WHAT IF I AM IMMUNOCOMPROMISED? If you are immunocompromised, you may receive a third primary series dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The third dose may still not provide full immunity to COVID-19 in people who are immunocompromised, and you should continue to maintain physical precautions to help prevent COVID-19. In addition, your close contacts should be vaccinated as appropriate. WHAT IF I AM PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING? If you are pregnant or breastfeeding, discuss your options with your healthcare provider. WILL THE MODERNA COVID-19 VACCINE GIVE ME COVID-19? No. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine does not contain SARS-CoV-2 and cannot give you COVID-19. KEEP YOUR VACCINATION CARD When you receive your first dose, you will get a vaccination card to show you when to return for your second dose of the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. Remember to bring your card when you return. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION If you have questions, visit the website or call the telephone number provided below. To access the most recent Fact Sheets, please scan the QR code provided below. Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine website Telephone number www.modernatx.com/covid19vaccine-eua 1-866-MODERNA(1-866-663-3762) HOW CAN I LEARN MORE? •Ask the vaccination provider •Visit CDC at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html •Visit FDA at https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal- regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization •Contact your state or local public health department Item 13.G 01/11/21 410 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4562 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) WHERE WILL MY VACCINATION INFORMATION BE RECORDED? The vaccination provider may include your vaccination information in your state/local jurisdiction’s Immunization Information System (IIS) or other designated system. This will ensure that you receive the same vaccine when you return for the second dose. For more information about IISs, visit: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/iis/about.html. CAN I BE CHARGED AN ADMINISTRATION FEE FOR RECEIPT OF THE COVID-19 VACCINE? No. At this time, the provider cannot charge you for a vaccine dose and you cannot be charged an out-of-pocket vaccine administration fee or any other fee if only receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. However, vaccination providers may seek appropriate reimbursement from a program or plan that covers COVID-19 vaccine administration fees for the vaccine recipient (private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, HRSA COVID-19 Uninsured Program for non-insured recipients). WHERE CAN I REPORT CASES OF SUSPECTED FRAUD? Individuals becoming aware of any potential violations of the CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program requirements are encouraged to report them to the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, at 1-800-HHS-TIPS or TIPS.HHS.GOV. WHAT IS THE COUNTERMEASURES INJURY COMPENSATION PROGRAM? The Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) is a federal program that may help pay for costs of medical care and other specific expenses of certain people who have been seriously injured by certain medicines or vaccines, including this vaccine. Generally, a claim must be submitted to the CICP within one (1) year from the date of receiving the vaccine. To learn more about this program, visit www.hrsa.gov/cicp/ or call 1-855-266-2427. WHAT IS AN EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA)? The United States FDA has made the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine available under an emergency access mechanism called an EUA. The EUA is supported by a Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) declaration that circumstances exist to justify the emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine has not undergone the same type of review as an FDA- approved or cleared product. FDA may issue an EUA when certain criteria are met, which includes that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. In addition, the FDA decision is based on the totality of the scientific evidence available showing that the product may be effective to prevent COVID-19 during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the known and potential benefits of the product outweigh the known and potential risks of the product. All of these criteria must be met to allow for the product to be used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The EUA for the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine is in effect for the duration of the COVID-19 EUA declaration justifying emergency use of these products, unless terminated or revoked (after which the products may no longer be used). Item 13.G 01/11/21 411 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4563 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Moderna US, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02139 ©2021 ModernaTX, Inc. All rights reserved. Patent(s): www.modernatx.com/patents Revised: Jan/7/2022 Scan to capture that this Fact Sheet was provided to vaccine recipient for the electronic medical records/immunization information systems. GDTI: 0886983000349 Item 13.G 01/11/21 412 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4564 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: SM Vaccine Mandate discussion Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:30:15 PM From: Jackie Pepper <jackiepeppersports@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:24 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: SM Vaccine Mandate discussion EXTERNAL Dear City Councilmembers, I just read in the SMDP that you'll be discussing the possibility of vaccine mandates during tonight's meeting. I wanted to quickly-yet-enthusiastically voice my support for a city-wide mandate for people five years old and older. I would love for the policy to go as far as requiring boosters for anyone who is eligible (based on the date of last vaccination). Every member of my household is vaccinated and boosted, yet we will not go inside any restaurant in Santa Monica because we err on the side of caution in assuming people inside are unvaccinated. I've been surprised to see Los Angeles taking a stronger lead on vaccine mandates than Santa Monica and would love for us to catch up. Science tells us that being indoors and maskless is unsafe at this point, but the risk is much lower for vaccinated+boosted people in that situation. Slowing the spread (and severe symptoms) is critical to our ability to attain some degree of normalcy. A friend of mine was in the St. John's ER over the weekend after being bitten by a dog. She told me that she's been hospitalized in a developing nation before and the St. John's ER was in worse shape and more chaotic than that experience. She said the doctor treating her told her these last couple of weeks is the worst thing he's ever experienced in medicine. He administered an IV and told her that there were other meds the hospital would typically administer, but "unless you are dying, you're safer at home than here" and "plus, we need the bed" so he gave her meds to self-administer at home, and discharged her. This was after she waited to be seen for several hours in a packed waiting room. As a city with a fairly high vaccination rate, it is unacceptable that our own residents, healthcare providers and employees of local businesses are being punished by people who are coming here from out of town because there is no mandate. It also allows some residents of our own community an easy excuse to remain unvaccinated, as they are able to live their lives "normally" and free of social responsibility. Santa Monicans, as do people around the world, deserve the important layer of safety created by vaccine mandates. Item 13.G 01/11/21 413 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4565 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) Of course tourism is an important part of life here, and I can understand concerns about how a mandate would impact income from tourism. But I think a strict mandate to improve safety would attract its own population of tourists who seek to travel safely during this difficult time. Please use your authority and the science-based evidence available to you to create a comprehensive vaccine mandate to better the lives of Santa Monicans and its visitors. Thank you for your hard work and dedication. Sincerely, Jackie Pepper (Santa Monica resident) -- Jackie Pepper TV . Radio . Film . Web 310.980.6410 www.JackiePepper.com Item 13.G 01/11/21 414 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4566 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Vaccination Passports! Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:30:02 PM -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Sandra <sandra@peopleforreason.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:24 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Vaccination Passports! EXTERNAL The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for unnecessary, misguided policies. As admitted by the FDA, the CDC and the WHO, the fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the Covid virus. Most people are asymptomatic and few become ill with flu-like symptoms. The rare cases of serious illness and death are what make it to the media news reports — unnecessarily terrorizing gullible members of the public who believe whatever the talking heads say. Vaccination passports create barriers to products and services for those who do not comply, with the purpose of coercing and forcing an unwanted medical experiment on certain members of the public. This is discrimination, coercion and creates a medical apartheid in our society. We all must be allowed to freely shop, do our daily errands and eat meals in restaurants. Masks and social distancing are enough to ask in order to make everyone comfortable. I highly recommend everyone, especially legislators, read “The Truth About Anthony Fauci” by Robert Kennedy jr. — a well researched and referenced expose’. Sincerely, Sandra Bell Item 13.G 01/11/21 415 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4567 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:29:44 PM From: Sarah Starks <slstarks@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:21 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: Re: Agenda Item 13-G - Please Implement a Vaccine Mandate for Those Entering Certain Indoor Establishments in Santa Monica EXTERNAL Dear City Council Members, I support implementing a vaccine mandate for those entering certain indoor establishments in Santa Monica that would bring Santa Monica in line with the mandate in effect in the city of Los Angeles. Vaccine mandates help protect public health and also support our local businesses by helping residents feel safe visiting indoor facilities. Best, Sarah Starks Santa Monica Resident Item 13.G 01/11/21 416 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4568 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: YES vaccine mandate Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:25:33 PM -----Original Message----- From: Heidi Jo Corey <hjc777@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:23 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Cc: Heidi Jo Corey <hjc777@aol.com> Subject: YES vaccine mandate EXTERNAL Please let’s hear it for another “YES” for a vaccine mandate in Santa Monica restaurants, theaters, salons, etc. Please adopt the one already in place in LA City. This is not the time to move backwards, but to move forward with extreme caution and diligence. Please, Keep Santa Monica - and it’s visitors safe! Thank you! Heidi Jo Corey 310-656-0000 A Santa Monica resident for 20 years! Item 13.G 01/11/21 417 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4569 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Japan drops all vaccine mandates, places myocarditis warning on label – Global Reportage Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:25:27 PM From: Paola Coria <paolacoria@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:22 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: Japan drops all vaccine mandates, places myocarditis warning on label – Global Reportage EXTERNAL See link below...this is one of many countries now realizing how dangerous these shots are...Take a minute to also research Israel, the country with the highest vaccination rates yet they all continue to have a rise in covid cases...these shots DO NOT PREVENT SPREAD they should NOT be FORCED on people to live a normal life. This is the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY that the INEFFECTIVENESS of a medicine is being blamed on those who haven't taken it!! How does that make any sense! https://globalreportage.org/2022/01/08/japan-drops-all-vaccine-mandates-places-myocarditis- warning-on-label/ Item 13.G 01/11/21 418 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4570 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: IMPORTANT!! Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 5:30:20 PM From: Jlotus432hz <lotus432hz@protonmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2022 4:22 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov> Subject: IMPORTANT!! EXTERNAL Arguments against the SM-V Passport. This policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. It is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private businesses because they are not vaccinated with the premise of slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are not vaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. Sincerely, Jeodi Avila Sent from ProtonMail mobile Item 13.G 01/11/21 419 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4571 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) From:Council Mailbox To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport Date:Tuesday, January 11, 2022 2:03:19 PM From: Aya Pi <aya314@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 7:08 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@santamonica.gov>; David White <David.White@santamonica.gov> Subject: 13g. Santa Monica vaccine passport EXTERNAL Hello David White, As global data continues to flood in regarding current hospitalizations and cases in the fully- vaccinated overwhelming the numbers of unvaccinated on both metrics, this is a foolhardy enactment of segregation which would very negatively affect Santa Monica businesses and communities. In addition, the potential fir vaccine injuries, both long and short term, can no longer be ignored. As was published in the Lancet recently, there is no medical or health policy justification to continue with bulk vaccination, not segregation of those who wish not to inoculate themselves with the current vaccine options. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02243-1/fulltext “ This proportion is increasing week by week and was 58.9 percent on 27. October 2021 (Figure 1) providing clear evidence of the increasing relevance of the fully vaccinated as a possible source of transmission. A similar situation was described for the UK. Between week 39 and 42, a total of 100,160 COVID-19 cases were reported among citizens of 60 years or older. 89,821 occurred among the fully vaccinated (89.7 percent), 3395 among the unvaccinated (3.4 percent) [[3]]. https://principia-scientific.com/lancet-89-of-new-uk-covid- cases-among-fully-vaxxed/ Additionally, this policy creates legal liabilities for the City of Santa Monica. We elected you to be good stewards of our public dollars. This policy violates various federal laws and puts the City of Santa Monica in a position to be sued. The City of Santa Monica can no longer afford legal fees for misguided policies. The SM Vaccine Passport does not slow down the transmission of the COVID virus and creates a false sense of security. 1. If so, it is a known fact that those that are fully vaccinated and boosted can still contract and transmit the COVID virus. Preventing residents from obtaining services or accessing private Item 13.G 01/11/21 420 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4572 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate) businesses because they are unvaccinated with the premise is slow down the transmission is not based on science and only works to sanction and create a discriminatory policy. 2. This policy requires residents to demonstrate their medical records in order for them to gain access to the facilities mentioned in the Santa Monica Vaccine Passport policy, which is a violation of HIPA. 3. This policy intentionally creates barriers to products and services for residents that are unvaccinated with the purpose to “incentivize and force” residents to get vaccinated. By creating a system of coercion for people to take the COVID vaccine. This is a violation under 21 code of federal regulations section 50.23 and 24, which states, it is illegal to make anybody participate in an experimental program using coercion. The SM Vaccine Passport creates a diversion to the real needs of residents such as public safety, economic recovery and housing. 1. Will SMPD be enforcing the SM vaccine passport? This can divert the attention of SMPD when they should be focusing on improving public safety. 2. Will business employees be required to take on the role of policing resident’s medical records? Is it fair to require employees to enforce the SM Vaccine Passport and potentially violate people’s rights under HIPA. The SM Vaccine Passport creates division among residents and essentially a second-class citizenry that sanctions discrimination by denying products and services to residents based on a medical procedure. I urge you to do the right thing for the overall health and well-being of our community, and dismiss this legislation which clearly, as is currently being seen in Israel, creating immune-erosion caused by vaccination, augmenting illness, sickness and death in individuals needlessly against a much- weakened variant, and will decimate struggling businesses. Unite, don’t segregate when the efficacy of vaccination is increasingly shown to be dubious and unjustified from a medical standpoint. Thank you. Warmly, Aya Item 13.G 01/11/21 421 of 421 Item 13.G 01/11/21 13.G.b Packet Pg. 4573 Attachment: Written Comments [Revision 2] (4924 : Vaccine Mandate)