There is a common misconception in educated circles that if parents adopt a hands-off approach to their child’s moral development then their child will independently discover and intelligently apply their own value system. They don’t. If you, as a parent, don’t instill your own (hopefully wholesome) values on to your children, someone else will.
I am afraid the education system has been busy doing that for at least the last 30 years largely based on the premise the value systems of parents has to be over-written
Rockefeller General Educational Board Meeting (1906):
In our dreams . . .people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present educational conventions [of intellectual and moral education] fade from our minds, and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, educators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen — of whom we have an ample supply. The task we set before ourselves is very simple. . .we will organize children. . . and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way.
This. I think we can best assume that with rare exceptions, parents care deeply about the wellbeing of their children. The state? Perhaps neutral on a good day, if I’m being generous.
Not ‘may’ but does not know best and has demonstrated incompetence at every turn. And especially with regard to the science – where do we here the doubts expressed by Dr Robert Malone, who was involved in developing the mRNA ‘vaccine’ – stating that they may have made a big mistake with injecting the spike-protein, as it is causing long-term auto-immune reactions, and children should not be vaccinated – only those at high risk from the virus? This incompetent state has suppressed scientific criticism and already drifted into a kind of ‘techno-fascism’ that it cannot recognise as such.
It is not just that the state does not know best, it is that the sate knows nothing at all.
SI
Samir Iker
2 years ago
What is really insidious is how governments and “experts” are now allowed to get away with mission creep, lies and outright obfuscation. A simple google search will throw out articles from last year, from “progressives” media and experts, mocking or attacking Trump for suggesting the virus might have originated in China, that facemasks might not be miraculaously stop microscopic aerosols, that the vaccine might be ready within a year or that certain medicines might be effective after all.
Those same exalted people, instead of being discredited, are now insisting that a vaccine that was rushed through, which may have risks, should be imposed on children who have close to 0% chance of dying or even developing severe symptoms, and in defiance of parents because what would they know?
I wonder what those vaccine bigots would say if they had a major redevelopment of their house which normally takes a year, and some builder comes over and says: “why don’t you use this marvellous new, untested building technique which can complete the work in a month instead of a year, and by the way you need to sign a document waiving any liabilities if the house crashes down sometime as a result, all very normal you know”
Incidentally, I got the vaccine. It made sense because my wife is high risk. If I were a 15-40 year old with no constant, direct contact with older or high risk people, I would not get the vaccine. Guess that makes me an anti-vaxxer.
What is the “marvellous new, untested” vaccine development technique to which you refer? I thought they got done so quickly because governments splurged unprecedented amounts of money. Isn’t the better analogy that of a builder who says, “If you spend ten times as much, I can hire extra guys and get this done quicker”?
He means mRNA which is new, only tested previously as therapy for cancer I believe and in which it reportedly failed, and possibly also vectored DNA vaccines
The government and experts get away with it because “we” allow it. They have used psychological techniques to generate fear and the belief that they are the saviours.
LC
Laura Creighton
2 years ago
There is a tiny bit here about what informs parental decisions, but nothing about whether the adolescents are making an informed choice. ‘How to make an informed choice’ is one of the things parents need to teach their children, because goodness knows they won’t be learning that in school unless their school is very unusual.
How many adults have made an informed opinion on the vaccines? They don’t know the difference between a relative risk reduction and an absolute risk reduction so they have been fooled into accepting that the vaccines work. They also have no idea about the risk of the vaccines because that was not included in the trials.
HL
Hilary LW
2 years ago
This is not about “politics” – it’s about science. There is no scientific justification whatsoever in favour of giving these experimental jabs to children, who are at zero risk from the virus. There is sound scientific evidence that a minority of children have suffered severe and life-changing adverse effects from these injections, and some healthy teenagers have died. What responsible parent would consent to putting their child at risk in this way? And no-one knows the long-term effects of these injections, and the cumulative effects on the natural immune system. This is not politics, but science and morality and common sense. Unfortunately there has been relentless propaganda and emotional blackmail targeted at children and young people, seeking to persuade them that somehow in getting the jab they’ll be doing a duty to protect others. Science shows that this is nonsense – these jabs do not prevent either infection or transmission of Covid-19, and are proving particularly useless against the Delta variant – in fact, have probably allowed this mutation to develop and flourish. That is not “politics” either, but biology. What a pathetic article.
This should not even be a discussion. The judges at Nuremburg gave their view on the ethics of injecting test vaccines into children which cannot be of any medical benefit to them, and nothing has changed in the subsequent 75 years.
GV
Graff von Frankenheim
2 years ago
What is worrying about this piece is that there are apparently many parents who are unable to discern that it is the fabricated Covid “crisis”, the hysterical and ruinous government response and the serf-making vaccines that are all part of a global political and economic power grab of colossal proportions and that going along with it will make their child’s life (and that of their descendants) utterly miserable and dystopian. The evidence is truly everywhere and warnings have come from many reputable thinkers and yet parents are giving up their childrens’ futures. This is 1 million times more important than smoking pot
LV
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
The article below was sent to me today. The outline is that two top FDA officials have resigned and put their signatures to a paper in the Lancet warning against booster shots. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext
The article in its entirety should be read by everyone in the ongoing attempt to ascertain the risks vs benefits of vaccines (especially boosters) – and now as they are being let’s be honest, pressured onto children. https://brownstone.org/articles/the-meaning-of-the-fda-resignations/
One of our frequent posters in the sciences has been warning for some time about the dangers of boosters.
The Lancet report is using relative risk reduction which is not the correct value and so it presents efficacies of around 95%. The figure we need for the entire population is the absolute reduction which is 1% or less. Many of the studies are observational and to be of any value they should be randomised control trial. The Lancet is not a reliable source of information any more, and it started years ago when they were supporting Andrew Wakefield and his false claim that the MMR vaccine caused Autism.
I could go with the fact that some of the Lancet papers are not reliable – after all they published the compromised hydroxychloroquine paper showing that it was ineffective. That said, we have seen recently that a lot of science is being shown to be on shaky ground.
More importantly, did you read the article and if you disagree with it, do you think a) the boosters are safe and b) can you suggest a reason why the FDA officials resigned.
Very intersting article – thanks! Still, the article has nothing to say about the risk/benefit ration for vaccines in general, or for children. Their argument against booster vaccines are
Most of the (considerable) benefit from vaccines is already there from the original vaccination, so there is less left to gain.
The newest data do seem to show that immunity declines with time, but protection against severe disease is much more robust, and it is still possible that part of the decline may be an artefact.
Boosters will be more effective and gain us more information if we apply them later when we know more.
Scarce vaccines should not be used for boosting as long as there are so many unvaccinated people (in the third world and elsewhere) who need them more.
So basically they are not saying that booster vaccines do not provide any benefit, but that it is a bad use of resources, and it will cost relatively little to wait and learn more (unlike when vaccination started). Quite convincing, on boosters, but it does not generalise the way you want it to.
Last edited 2 years ago by Rasmus Fogh
LV
Lesley van Reenen
2 years ago
This should be presented to children and their parents (and society) in a very short and clear risk vs benefits argument. In that way it is likely there will be consensus between adults and children.
As there is so much at stake (huge rewards for big pharma and everyone aligned to them – all of them greedy adults), I do not anticipate this happening.
It has been presented using lies and fear to persuade people to have an untried and basically ineffective vaccine. If you look at the trial results and know about statistics then you will see how easy it is for the government to deceive people. They have used a relative risk reduction, which is a valid calculation giving an efficacy of around 95%, but figure that matters is the absolute risk reduction which is around 1% or less. This means that 100 people have to be vaccinated for 1 person to benefit. I have seen test results that show even lower benefits requiring over 200 to be vaccinated. This is why the vaccine will not control the virus.
SM
Susan Marshall
2 years ago
“Perhaps I’m unusual, but ever since I was allowed — just allowed! — to take my firstborn home from the hospital, I’ve been sceptical about the idea that parents know best.”
So you are definitely of the opinion that your children are the property of the state.
There is no case for vaccination to protect others. We now know that it doesn’t. It protects you from being severely ill.
Why do people feel that they cannot agree with people of other tribes? Cannot bear to be associated with Laurence Fox, even if you agree with him.
I am concerned that so many people cannot think for themselves and have the guts to tread their own path, regardless of who you might be agreeing with on one topic or another. That ALL ideas about ALL things must be in common with your gang. It means you end up proselytizing yourself.
“…contesting their right to undergo a mildly painful medical procedure of little immediate benefit to them has never been one of them.”
It is not a “right”. If young people are given the “right” to overrule their parent’s decision to take the vaccine or not take the vaccine that would be a “right”. That is not what is on offer. The state is giving the children “power”. Power to overrule their parent’s but only where the parents have taken the “wrong”, non-state approved decision. “Children have been asked to make significant, necessary sacrifices for adults”
No they have not. Children have not been “asked” anything. They have been deprived of their liberty and education without their consent. It is infuriating that dishonest propagandists such as this author have repeatedly characterised that which is compulsory as voluntary.
If you are in your 50s, as I am, and you are asking or demanding that a twelve year old child make a sacrifice for your health by taking a risk with his or her health, however small that risk may be, then you are a coward and you are the very embodiment of the selfishness and degeneracy that will be the end of us.
JP
jim peden
2 years ago
It seems that the idea of ‘informed choice’ is the straw man here. At the moment there is only misinformed choice. No one – not epidemiologists or virologists or even the prime minister – correctly knows even what the short or medium term consequences of this vaccination are let alone the long term ones. Our children are the ones who will have to face any long term consequences. Only time – and diligent, unbiased investigation and debate will reveal the truth of the matter. These are commodities that are in short supply. A sensible strategy would be to wait as long as possible.
CW
Caroline Watson
2 years ago
The point is whether you are happy for your child to undergo a medical procedure, for which there is considerably more risk than benefit to them as an individual, for reasons that are political and social rather than medical. In particular, are you happy for them to be used as a human shield to satisfy the demands and agenda of the teaching unions?
There is also a wider principle. Do you think it is acceptable for your child to sacrifice their education, their social lives, their opportunity to do a part time job and, now, potentially their health for the sake of adults whom they don’t know? Why should the able, high achieving young, who have the potential to contribute considerably to society, be sacrificed for those whose contribution is over, or do not possess the ability to make one?
I think the best message that any parent can give to their child is to tell them to put their own education, health and well-being first. Let ‘others’ look after themselves.
That is true altruism not selfishness. You can’t love the other if you don’t know how to love yourself
Last edited 2 years ago by Dan Croitoru
PS
Peta Seel
2 years ago
If this were just an issue about whether or not children should be vaccinated it would be cut and dried and the obvious answer is not, simply because they don’t need it and nor does anyone else need them to have it because they are not major vectors of the virus. The Swedish experience proves that. Furthermore, evidence is emerging that while the risk of both Covid and vaccination is tiny, it is greater in the latter. And that is before we get into the discussion about totally unknown long term effects. But that isn’t the issue is it?
The real issue is one of control. Who controls the children? If I had children and decided against them being vaccinated for the reasons above, and then the state decided that, with a little bit of help from them, my children could over-rule my decision, I would have only one thing to say. Since I am clearly superfluous to requirements in terms of bring up my children, please take them into care just as soon as they are vaccinated. Think I’m joking? Don’t bet on it.
AT
Alan Thorpe
2 years ago
We need find out who is in the role of Prof Pavlov ringing the bells to control the weak minded.
PS
Peter Shaw
2 years ago
Any child who has been even slightly exposed to the relentless government and media propaganda about Covid, will choose to have the vaccine. The point is whether that choice is a free one in any sense of the word.
MC
Michael Coleman
2 years ago
I appreciate the honesty of the author in her acknowledgement that the benefit of the vaccine her sons are intending to receive will mainly go to reducing the risk for others. I’ll assume she has discussed this with them. Similarly hope they are aware of the myocarditis risk for young males.
Given the very small risk posed by both the vaccines or remaining unvaccinated for this age group there probably will be quite a few more important issues/decisions before the sons reach adulthood.
RC
Drahcir Nevarc
2 years ago
“I do not want to be standing alongside Laurence Fox.” I do. I just happen to disagree with him about vaccination.
TF
Terence Fitch
2 years ago
Pathetic idea from the government. Logically right wing ‘freedom’ is congruent here with anti establishment anarchic weirdy lefty ‘freedom’. Try that one in Singapore or a more rational country like Denmark where 80% of the pop over 12 are vaccinated. It also encourages those who can’t count- the ones who think flying is dangerous but who will happily drive a car regularly, who can’t even cope with a weather forecast that mentions a percentage chance of rain without dumbly complaining ‘is it gonna rain then?’ What a thicko population we have- ignorant through poor history teaching of the ravages of the past- stupidly proud of their ‘health’ without an iota of understanding of the science that has allowed us to be so healthy.
Science that has allowed us to be so healthy? I don’t think we need science to allow us to be healthy. We need fresh and clean air, good nutrition, exercise, healthy relationships ((including at the moment online, for example being treated civilly and without dehumanisation) and stress in manageable amounts. We also need a sense of personal sovereignty. My good health certainly has never depended on science “allowing” me to have it. I see evidence everywhere of how “science” is making us unhealthy through air pollution, stressful lives, a lack of beauty in our urban environments, pushing us ever further into our intellects and away from our bodies and souls. If you are talking of vaccinations, which I presume you are, and maybe antibiotics and various other pharmaceuticals, they may well have their place, but they are not what “allows us” to be healthy. They are what we use when we think we won’t be able to deal with factors that lead to a lack of health by ourselves.
The huge improvement in health over the last 150 years or so has mostly come from general public health improvements. I guess you could say that is driven by science; discovery of electricity for example, but I suspect that is not what you mean. Just as an example, in the UK between 1900 and 1968 the measles mortality rate fell by better than 99%, *before* the single measles vaccine was introduced.
Report this comment
This site is registered on wpml.org as a development site. Switch to a production site key to remove this banner.
There is a common misconception in educated circles that if parents adopt a hands-off approach to their child’s moral development then their child will independently discover and intelligently apply their own value system. They don’t. If you, as a parent, don’t instill your own (hopefully wholesome) values on to your children, someone else will.
brilliant comment.
I am afraid the education system has been busy doing that for at least the last 30 years largely based on the premise the value systems of parents has to be over-written
My mother always said someone would indoctrinate her children and so she was determined it would be her not someone else.
Well said, but not all mothers are caring (mine), so just check with all the aunts you like 1st…
Beautifully put. Agreed.
The biggest point, that the state may not know best, is missing from this discussion.
Or that the state may even have nefarious intentions.
More likely the state is simply clueless.
that is what they hope we think and just tut tut….it is far more sinister
Rockefeller General Educational Board Meeting (1906):
Quite right. Google “Hanlon’s Razor”.
This. I think we can best assume that with rare exceptions, parents care deeply about the wellbeing of their children. The state? Perhaps neutral on a good day, if I’m being generous.
The state does know best – but only what is best for them.
Not ‘may’ but does not know best and has demonstrated incompetence at every turn. And especially with regard to the science – where do we here the doubts expressed by Dr Robert Malone, who was involved in developing the mRNA ‘vaccine’ – stating that they may have made a big mistake with injecting the spike-protein, as it is causing long-term auto-immune reactions, and children should not be vaccinated – only those at high risk from the virus? This incompetent state has suppressed scientific criticism and already drifted into a kind of ‘techno-fascism’ that it cannot recognise as such.
It is not just that the state does not know best, it is that the sate knows nothing at all.
What is really insidious is how governments and “experts” are now allowed to get away with mission creep, lies and outright obfuscation. A simple google search will throw out articles from last year, from “progressives” media and experts, mocking or attacking Trump for suggesting the virus might have originated in China, that facemasks might not be miraculaously stop microscopic aerosols, that the vaccine might be ready within a year or that certain medicines might be effective after all.
Those same exalted people, instead of being discredited, are now insisting that a vaccine that was rushed through, which may have risks, should be imposed on children who have close to 0% chance of dying or even developing severe symptoms, and in defiance of parents because what would they know?
I wonder what those vaccine bigots would say if they had a major redevelopment of their house which normally takes a year, and some builder comes over and says: “why don’t you use this marvellous new, untested building technique which can complete the work in a month instead of a year, and by the way you need to sign a document waiving any liabilities if the house crashes down sometime as a result, all very normal you know”
Incidentally, I got the vaccine. It made sense because my wife is high risk. If I were a 15-40 year old with no constant, direct contact with older or high risk people, I would not get the vaccine. Guess that makes me an anti-vaxxer.
What is the “marvellous new, untested” vaccine development technique to which you refer? I thought they got done so quickly because governments splurged unprecedented amounts of money. Isn’t the better analogy that of a builder who says, “If you spend ten times as much, I can hire extra guys and get this done quicker”?
He means mRNA which is new, only tested previously as therapy for cancer I believe and in which it reportedly failed, and possibly also vectored DNA vaccines
The government and experts get away with it because “we” allow it. They have used psychological techniques to generate fear and the belief that they are the saviours.
There is a tiny bit here about what informs parental decisions, but nothing about whether the adolescents are making an informed choice. ‘How to make an informed choice’ is one of the things parents need to teach their children, because goodness knows they won’t be learning that in school unless their school is very unusual.
How many adults have made an informed opinion on the vaccines? They don’t know the difference between a relative risk reduction and an absolute risk reduction so they have been fooled into accepting that the vaccines work. They also have no idea about the risk of the vaccines because that was not included in the trials.
This is not about “politics” – it’s about science. There is no scientific justification whatsoever in favour of giving these experimental jabs to children, who are at zero risk from the virus. There is sound scientific evidence that a minority of children have suffered severe and life-changing adverse effects from these injections, and some healthy teenagers have died. What responsible parent would consent to putting their child at risk in this way? And no-one knows the long-term effects of these injections, and the cumulative effects on the natural immune system. This is not politics, but science and morality and common sense. Unfortunately there has been relentless propaganda and emotional blackmail targeted at children and young people, seeking to persuade them that somehow in getting the jab they’ll be doing a duty to protect others. Science shows that this is nonsense – these jabs do not prevent either infection or transmission of Covid-19, and are proving particularly useless against the Delta variant – in fact, have probably allowed this mutation to develop and flourish. That is not “politics” either, but biology. What a pathetic article.
As my son says “a good product sells itself”.
Exactly. Thanks for this comment.
This should not even be a discussion. The judges at Nuremburg gave their view on the ethics of injecting test vaccines into children which cannot be of any medical benefit to them, and nothing has changed in the subsequent 75 years.
What is worrying about this piece is that there are apparently many parents who are unable to discern that it is the fabricated Covid “crisis”, the hysterical and ruinous government response and the serf-making vaccines that are all part of a global political and economic power grab of colossal proportions and that going along with it will make their child’s life (and that of their descendants) utterly miserable and dystopian. The evidence is truly everywhere and warnings have come from many reputable thinkers and yet parents are giving up their childrens’ futures. This is 1 million times more important than smoking pot
The article below was sent to me today. The outline is that two top FDA officials have resigned and put their signatures to a paper in the Lancet warning against booster shots. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02046-8/fulltext
The article in its entirety should be read by everyone in the ongoing attempt to ascertain the risks vs benefits of vaccines (especially boosters) – and now as they are being let’s be honest, pressured onto children.
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-meaning-of-the-fda-resignations/
One of our frequent posters in the sciences has been warning for some time about the dangers of boosters.
The Lancet report is using relative risk reduction which is not the correct value and so it presents efficacies of around 95%. The figure we need for the entire population is the absolute reduction which is 1% or less. Many of the studies are observational and to be of any value they should be randomised control trial. The Lancet is not a reliable source of information any more, and it started years ago when they were supporting Andrew Wakefield and his false claim that the MMR vaccine caused Autism.
I could go with the fact that some of the Lancet papers are not reliable – after all they published the compromised hydroxychloroquine paper showing that it was ineffective. That said, we have seen recently that a lot of science is being shown to be on shaky ground.
More importantly, did you read the article and if you disagree with it, do you think a) the boosters are safe and b) can you suggest a reason why the FDA officials resigned.
Very intersting article – thanks! Still, the article has nothing to say about the risk/benefit ration for vaccines in general, or for children. Their argument against booster vaccines are
So basically they are not saying that booster vaccines do not provide any benefit, but that it is a bad use of resources, and it will cost relatively little to wait and learn more (unlike when vaccination started). Quite convincing, on boosters, but it does not generalise the way you want it to.
This should be presented to children and their parents (and society) in a very short and clear risk vs benefits argument. In that way it is likely there will be consensus between adults and children.
As there is so much at stake (huge rewards for big pharma and everyone aligned to them – all of them greedy adults), I do not anticipate this happening.
It has been presented using lies and fear to persuade people to have an untried and basically ineffective vaccine. If you look at the trial results and know about statistics then you will see how easy it is for the government to deceive people. They have used a relative risk reduction, which is a valid calculation giving an efficacy of around 95%, but figure that matters is the absolute risk reduction which is around 1% or less. This means that 100 people have to be vaccinated for 1 person to benefit. I have seen test results that show even lower benefits requiring over 200 to be vaccinated. This is why the vaccine will not control the virus.
“Perhaps I’m unusual, but ever since I was allowed — just allowed! — to take my firstborn home from the hospital, I’ve been sceptical about the idea that parents know best.”
So you are definitely of the opinion that your children are the property of the state.
There is no case for vaccination to protect others. We now know that it doesn’t. It protects you from being severely ill.
Why do people feel that they cannot agree with people of other tribes? Cannot bear to be associated with Laurence Fox, even if you agree with him.
I am concerned that so many people cannot think for themselves and have the guts to tread their own path, regardless of who you might be agreeing with on one topic or another. That ALL ideas about ALL things must be in common with your gang. It means you end up proselytizing yourself.
Well said!
“…contesting their right to undergo a mildly painful medical procedure of little immediate benefit to them has never been one of them.”
It is not a “right”. If young people are given the “right” to overrule their parent’s decision to take the vaccine or not take the vaccine that would be a “right”. That is not what is on offer. The state is giving the children “power”. Power to overrule their parent’s but only where the parents have taken the “wrong”, non-state approved decision.
“Children have been asked to make significant, necessary sacrifices for adults”
No they have not. Children have not been “asked” anything. They have been deprived of their liberty and education without their consent. It is infuriating that dishonest propagandists such as this author have repeatedly characterised that which is compulsory as voluntary.
If you are in your 50s, as I am, and you are asking or demanding that a twelve year old child make a sacrifice for your health by taking a risk with his or her health, however small that risk may be, then you are a coward and you are the very embodiment of the selfishness and degeneracy that will be the end of us.
It seems that the idea of ‘informed choice’ is the straw man here. At the moment there is only misinformed choice. No one – not epidemiologists or virologists or even the prime minister – correctly knows even what the short or medium term consequences of this vaccination are let alone the long term ones. Our children are the ones who will have to face any long term consequences. Only time – and diligent, unbiased investigation and debate will reveal the truth of the matter. These are commodities that are in short supply. A sensible strategy would be to wait as long as possible.
The point is whether you are happy for your child to undergo a medical procedure, for which there is considerably more risk than benefit to them as an individual, for reasons that are political and social rather than medical. In particular, are you happy for them to be used as a human shield to satisfy the demands and agenda of the teaching unions?
There is also a wider principle. Do you think it is acceptable for your child to sacrifice their education, their social lives, their opportunity to do a part time job and, now, potentially their health for the sake of adults whom they don’t know? Why should the able, high achieving young, who have the potential to contribute considerably to society, be sacrificed for those whose contribution is over, or do not possess the ability to make one?
I think the best message that any parent can give to their child is to tell them to put their own education, health and well-being first. Let ‘others’ look after themselves.
Well I wouldn’t teach such overt selfishness to a child, but the rest I agree with.
That is true altruism not selfishness. You can’t love the other if you don’t know how to love yourself
If this were just an issue about whether or not children should be vaccinated it would be cut and dried and the obvious answer is not, simply because they don’t need it and nor does anyone else need them to have it because they are not major vectors of the virus. The Swedish experience proves that. Furthermore, evidence is emerging that while the risk of both Covid and vaccination is tiny, it is greater in the latter. And that is before we get into the discussion about totally unknown long term effects. But that isn’t the issue is it?
The real issue is one of control. Who controls the children? If I had children and decided against them being vaccinated for the reasons above, and then the state decided that, with a little bit of help from them, my children could over-rule my decision, I would have only one thing to say. Since I am clearly superfluous to requirements in terms of bring up my children, please take them into care just as soon as they are vaccinated. Think I’m joking? Don’t bet on it.
We need find out who is in the role of Prof Pavlov ringing the bells to control the weak minded.
Any child who has been even slightly exposed to the relentless government and media propaganda about Covid, will choose to have the vaccine. The point is whether that choice is a free one in any sense of the word.
I appreciate the honesty of the author in her acknowledgement that the benefit of the vaccine her sons are intending to receive will mainly go to reducing the risk for others. I’ll assume she has discussed this with them. Similarly hope they are aware of the myocarditis risk for young males.
Given the very small risk posed by both the vaccines or remaining unvaccinated for this age group there probably will be quite a few more important issues/decisions before the sons reach adulthood.
“I do not want to be standing alongside Laurence Fox.”
I do. I just happen to disagree with him about vaccination.
Pathetic idea from the government. Logically right wing ‘freedom’ is congruent here with anti establishment anarchic weirdy lefty ‘freedom’. Try that one in Singapore or a more rational country like Denmark where 80% of the pop over 12 are vaccinated. It also encourages those who can’t count- the ones who think flying is dangerous but who will happily drive a car regularly, who can’t even cope with a weather forecast that mentions a percentage chance of rain without dumbly complaining ‘is it gonna rain then?’ What a thicko population we have- ignorant through poor history teaching of the ravages of the past- stupidly proud of their ‘health’ without an iota of understanding of the science that has allowed us to be so healthy.
Science that has allowed us to be so healthy? I don’t think we need science to allow us to be healthy. We need fresh and clean air, good nutrition, exercise, healthy relationships ((including at the moment online, for example being treated civilly and without dehumanisation) and stress in manageable amounts. We also need a sense of personal sovereignty. My good health certainly has never depended on science “allowing” me to have it. I see evidence everywhere of how “science” is making us unhealthy through air pollution, stressful lives, a lack of beauty in our urban environments, pushing us ever further into our intellects and away from our bodies and souls. If you are talking of vaccinations, which I presume you are, and maybe antibiotics and various other pharmaceuticals, they may well have their place, but they are not what “allows us” to be healthy. They are what we use when we think we won’t be able to deal with factors that lead to a lack of health by ourselves.
The huge improvement in health over the last 150 years or so has mostly come from general public health improvements. I guess you could say that is driven by science; discovery of electricity for example, but I suspect that is not what you mean. Just as an example, in the UK between 1900 and 1968 the measles mortality rate fell by better than 99%, *before* the single measles vaccine was introduced.