The vaccination obligation planned in the canton of St. Gallen with the threat of a fine of CHF 20,000 is not an industrial accident, but a symptom of a completely misguided health policy. Other cantons also have mandatory vaccination programmes. The fines there are sometimes even higher. The basis for this is the Epidemics Act (EpG) at federal level. The Aktionsbündnis freie Schweiz is tackling the root of the problem and is demanding: no revision and tightening of the EpG without a proper review of the coronavirus period!
Media release dated 19 January 2026 ABF Switzerland
The resistance is working. A storm of indignation has broken out against the government of the canton of St. Gallen, which wants to abolish the voluntary nature of vaccinations and introduce a “compulsory vaccination programme”. The population will not stand for it. More than 2,500 letters of protest have been received by the cantonal councillor and health director Bruno Damann, as reported by SRF.
In addition to media such as HOCH2 TV and Weltwoche, the mainstream has also criticised the St. Gallen plans for compulsory vaccination, in some cases harshly. “It is an act of astonishing impertinence”, commented the NZZ. A survey conducted by Portal24, an online network with a strong presence in Eastern Switzerland, shows that over 92 per cent of participants reject such a de facto vaccination obligation and believe that it “clearly goes too far”.
Indirect compulsory vaccination becomes socially acceptable
However, we must make it clear: The vaccination obligation planned in the canton of St. Gallen with the threat of fines is not an industrial accident, but a symptom of a completely misguided health policy. Zurich, the most populous Swiss canton, imposes fines of up to CHF 50,000.
This in turn has led various politicians and the media to trivialise and play down the situation. The fact that half of Switzerland has mandatory vaccination programmes and threatens to impose penalties, some of which are high and completely disproportionate, does not make things any better. On the contrary: the high pressure on individuals is also intended to make an indirect vaccination obligation acceptable.
Berger defends threat of fine
The comments made by Christoph Berger, Head of the Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Hygiene at Zurich Children’s Hospital and President of the Federal Commission for Vaccination Issues (EKIF) from 2015 to 2023, were also revealing. In the NZZ, he explicitly backed the St. Gallen government, saying that it was right to include the mandatory vaccination requirement stipulated by federal law. “The cantons must implement the EpG.” However, he finds it awkward that the canton of St. Gallen is making the threat of punishment so transparent. Other cantons also have sanctions, but they wrap them up in a “general formulation”.
The purpose of this legal requirement, “combined with a fine as a penalty, is to achieve a high vaccination rate among the few people at extreme risk”, Berger continues. The “threat of a fine” is intended to “persuade the last unvaccinated people to be vaccinated – ideally without actually enforcing the penalty”. There is no clearer way to put it.
The door is open to arbitrariness
In fact, the cause of the problem lies in the Epidemics Act at federal level, Article 22 of which expressly provides for compulsory vaccinations. The decisive factor here is that although this only applies to certain groups of people, the fact that these are not clearly defined by law and are therefore open to political interpretation has serious consequences. Depending on the interpretation, this can include entire age groups, particularly vulnerable people, carers or even children and young people.
What is currently presented as a narrowly defined exception can quickly be extended in a crisis situation. If used excessively, a very large number of people could be affected – entire age cohorts, for example, regardless of their individual state of health or actual risk. Experience in the coronavirus era has shown that the requirements for a “deadly pandemic” have also been massively lowered. All of this opens the door to arbitrariness – and the decision on compulsory vaccination for potentially numerous people and groups of people would be entirely in the hands of the government.
Threatening tendencies – all power to the government
We are therefore observing a threatening trend that is not drawing the right conclusions from the mistakes and massive violations of fundamental rights under the corona regime, but rather wrong and dangerous conclusions that are potentially harmful to fundamental rights and health:
- Healthcare policy and provision is being systemically reorganised – it is becoming even more authoritarian.
- The executive is given even more power and discretion, not least through open legal terms.
- Despite being formally voluntary, the massive threat of punishment creates a de facto obligation to vaccinate.
- Exceptional instruments are normalised in the long term.
Petition on the Epidemics Act – a clean scientific review
The lack of a ruthless reappraisal of mistakes and failures during the coronavirus period is now leading the authorities continuing to turn the wheel and tighten the thumbscrew for the population. This is not only harmful, but also reveals – as the example of the canton of St. Gallen impressively demonstrates – a lack of democracy. The legal foundations are being laid over the heads of the population today in order to be able to make massive gains tomorrow.
The Aktionsbündnis freie Schweiz consistently points out these dangers and uses its legal expertise to educate the public and politicians before it is too late. Meanwhile, the authorities are making no secret of their intention to permanently enshrine repressive measures and mindsets from the pandemic era. We are resolutely opposing this. In our online petition “No partial revision of the Epidemics Act without a reappraisal”, we and numerous citizens are calling for the Swiss parliament to fulfil its responsibility and carry out a comprehensive reappraisal based on the latest scientific findings. Based on this, the National Council and Council of States must discuss which “necessary optimisations” should ultimately be anchored in the EpG. More pressure, more coercion, more authoritarian measures à la St. Gallen et cetera are definitely not part of this.
