Unvaccinated children and Delta, page-8

CHILDREN THE VICTIMS OF CLUELESS GOVERNMENTS

I know that Australia has been affectionately referred to as “Down Under”, suggesting that we are a long way from the rest of the world; but it seems, in relation to coronavirus and the endless contradictory government responses, we behave as if the rest of the world doesn’t exist.

It is not an exaggeration to say that Australia has become something of a laughing stock under the current leadership, State and Federal, through its responses to the virus.

Common sense would tell you shutting down millions of people from their work, their friends, their family, their mental wellbeing, their business viability, their very reason for living, does not pass muster, simply because a couple of people a day are dying.

We are rarely told whether they die from the virus or with it.

But now to the argument this week, from none other than the Federal Health Minister, that the vaccination program should expand to include all children over 12 and that that would be “an opportunity for parents to further protect their family.”

We are getting further and further into difficult territory.

There is never any health advice offered to justify any of these decisions.

In Britain, the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation, two weeks ago, declined to recommend vaccinating children aged between 12 and 15 who, according to a British editorial, represent “an age group almost untouched by the worst ravages of the virus”.

And the Joint Committee concluded that “though the health benefits from vaccination were marginally greater than the potential known harms to the group, they were too small to support extending the program”.

The Johnson Tory government then asked the UK’s four Chief Medical Officers to find some justification for over-ruling the JCVI.

This is where it gets even more absurd.

Britain’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, said the rationale for vaccination was the impact of the pandemic on education; and the threat that children could miss more schooling if “cases” increased over the winter months, prompting more lockdown measures; and that that disruption would pose a risk to their mental health, therefore, vaccinate.

Could there be a more absurd argument?

But it’s the stuff that we are fed here.

Get the drift?

We must vaccinate children because their schools will be closed if they aren’t vaccinated.

Yet it is the government which can either close or open the schools.

And as a British editorial said, “A recent analysis of medical data suggests (healthy boys) “are four to six times more likely to be diagnosed with vaccine-related myocarditis than to end up in hospital with Covid.”

Yet aren’t we told every day to “follow the science”?
Here is overt evidence that such a vaccination move has nothing to do with the science but, rather, with social and political decision making, that is vaccinate to stop schools from closing.

Yet we are told that the chance of a child dying from Covid is two in a million.

They have more chance of dying from a lightning strike.

So now, having inflicted upon children this disastrous policy of closing schools, which has resulted in months and months of disruption to children’s education, the answer, unscientific, is vaccinate the children.

It was last year that our Prime Minister said that children should be in school.

He has two school-aged children.

Now, there is no “science” presented by Greg Hunt or Gladys Berejiklian to justify what they are suggesting.

Where do the parents fit into this?

Nothing should happen, at least in a medical sense, to a child without parental consent.

In Britain, the Royal College of GPs has said that the decision to jab pupils should be “an individual one made by parents and children themselves”, and that they should be “supported to understand the pros and cons and to make an informed choice without being “pressurised” or “castigated”.”

But when our so-called leaders talk about this issue, there is not a mention about parents.
But if you have an outfit like the JCVI in Britain, which can’t actively recommend the use of vaccines in this age group, who the hell are Greg Hunt and Gladys Berejiklian to be throwing their weight, without evidence, behind such a proposal?

We don’t know how many children have been asymptomatic.

They may have already had the virus.

A big study in Israel suggests that protection offered to those having had the virus, for the young, is greater than that offered by the vaccine alone.

Of course, clinically vulnerable children should be offered the vaccine, if parents approve; and if parents want their perfectly healthy child to have the jab, away you go.

But families must be allowed to make these decisions without facing censure, let alone lectures.

There have been many freedoms eroded in our disproportionate response to the virus.

Surely we are now not going to be party to eroding, or even dismissing, the role of parents in determining the well-being of their child.

The notion that a child aged 12 to 15 is capable of understanding these complex decisions is a nonsense.

Many children that age don’t even know where they left their homework or where they left their school hat!

But to justify this in order to satisfy the unions who may boycott teaching because children aren’t vaccinated is to say that we are not advocating/forcing vaccination on medical grounds, but to avoid the disruption to their education which demonstrates the depths to which these coronavirus responses have sunk.

Consider this.

Schools have to ask parental permission for a child to have a photograph taken.

It surely would be unprecedented for government to ignore the will of parents on such a critical issue as child vaccination.

It was the British Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, who said last week, “What we are not trying to do is say to children you must, must, must, must, must.”; but governments, in dealing with children, must accept that their decisions on children’s education, as that education is affected by lockdowns and school closures, have unacceptable consequences on the social, emotional and mental well-being on those who are our leaders of tomorrow; they deserve our total support, not our abject betrayal.

There is any amount of evidence that school closures increase isolation amongst children, reduce physical activity and cut off children from their peers and social support.

A study by the University College London of 20 countries which had experienced school closures, found between 18% and 60% of youngsters had scored above risk thresholds for distress, particularly anxiety and depressive symptoms.

One truth we are not told.

Vaccination will not prevent the disruption of a child’s education.

This political mob have shown that only one case, whether it’s mild or otherwise, can lead to lockdowns.

Children and their education become victims again.

On many of these issues, the public have been silent.

It’s time we stood up in defence of our children.

They have been defenceless victims through all of this and no-one in politics seems to care.

Alan Jones