|
Corona
Sept 11, 2021 17:19:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by Lofty on Sept 11, 2021 17:19:46 GMT
I always thought the powers that be must know someone has a bioweapon that they're planning / threatening to use. The vaccine is to protect against that. That's why the reaction to this "pandemic" is disproportionate and they're really pushing the vaccine. They just can't scare everyone with the truth.
Sheep. 666. Earthquakes. Tell lies in vision etc etc
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 11, 2021 17:22:44 GMT
I always thought the powers that be must know someone has a bioweapon that they're planning / threatening to use. The vaccine is to protect against that. That's why the reaction to this "pandemic" is disproportionate and they're really pushing the vaccine. They just can't scare everyone with the truth. Sheep. 666. Earthquakes. Tell lies in vision etc etc I thought something similar except that there’s something they’re not telling us about the virus. That it’s an hors d’ouvre for a bigger main course or it’s designed to mutate into something much more dangerous. It’s all just part of a struggle to explain the massive overreaction though.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 13, 2021 15:36:32 GMT
Post by hammstrasse on Sept 13, 2021 15:36:32 GMT
Vaccines being pushed out onto Kids now.
This bit scares the hell out of me.
"The vaccine is likely to be given in schools and parents will be asked to give consent.
However, if the child and parent have different views, the child can give consent themselves if they are considered competent.
The NHS says that children under 16 can consent "if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment"."
|
|
|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Sept 13, 2021 16:21:17 GMT
Vaccines being pushed out onto Kids now. This bit scares the hell out of me. "The vaccine is likely to be given in schools and parents will be asked to give consent. However, if the child and parent have different views, the child can give consent themselves if they are considered competent. The NHS says that children under 16 can consent "if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment"." That seems pretty reasonable to me tbh, the default is still that they don’t get it. Still be better off sending those vaccines to poor countries mind. Can’t wait for the Dhaka vaccine resistant variant in 2026.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 13, 2021 16:51:52 GMT
Vaccines being pushed out onto Kids now. This bit scares the hell out of me. "The vaccine is likely to be given in schools and parents will be asked to give consent. However, if the child and parent have different views, the child can give consent themselves if they are considered competent. The NHS says that children under 16 can consent "if they're believed to have enough intelligence, competence and understanding to fully appreciate what's involved in their treatment"." That seems pretty reasonable to me tbh, the default is still that they don’t get it. Still be better off sending those vaccines to poor countries mind. Can’t wait for the Dhaka vaccine resistant variant in 2026. Reasonable? It’s utterly unreasonable. As a parent it’s my job to make decisions on behalf of my children and that principle is sacrosanct. The school system and the government don’t get to bypass this by cooking up some bullshit about the school making some sort of competency call. The idea that the government and the education system can overrule decisions made by me as to what’s best for my children is insane and dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 13, 2021 17:01:42 GMT
Besides which, we stick enough vaccines in enough arms of enough minors and sooner or later there’ll be one of the rare cases of heart enlargement from a vaccine given without parental consent. The ensuing court case and compensation claim will be huge. Leaving aside the fact that teachers shouldn’t be overruling parents, why should teachers shoulder that responsibility?
|
|
|
Post by Hoochy on Sept 13, 2021 20:02:27 GMT
Besides which, we stick enough vaccines in enough arms of enough minors and sooner or later there’ll be one of the rare cases of heart enlargement from a vaccine given without parental consent. The ensuing court case and compensation claim will be huge. Leaving aside the fact that teachers shouldn’t be overruling parents, why should teachers shoulder that responsibility? I'm very uncomfortable with it. My lad is 13 and is disabled by neuro diversity. He also has congenital health conditions which mean we have to be careful about what he gets in terms of medicine. He can't make those choices because he isn't capable and a teacher shouldn't make the choice for him because they have no idea of his underlying health conditions because it's rightly confidential. Don't know how they can pass this through.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 13, 2021 20:50:11 GMT
Besides which, we stick enough vaccines in enough arms of enough minors and sooner or later there’ll be one of the rare cases of heart enlargement from a vaccine given without parental consent. The ensuing court case and compensation claim will be huge. Leaving aside the fact that teachers shouldn’t be overruling parents, why should teachers shoulder that responsibility? I'm very uncomfortable with it. My lad is 13 and is disabled by neuro diversity. He also has congenital health conditions which mean we have to be careful about what he gets in terms of medicine. He can't make those choices because he isn't capable and a teacher shouldn't make the choice for him because they have no idea of his underlying health conditions because it's rightly confidential. Don't know how they can pass this through. I was only thinking about the healthy; confidential medical conditions never occurred to me. It’s a tragedy just waiting to happen. I’ve told my daughter to politely decline and that if the conversation doesn’t end there then she’s to ring me and I’ll fire a few fucks into them. Any pressure gets put on my kids to have the vaccine and I’ll lose my shit.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 13, 2021 20:50:52 GMT
Since when did ‘educational disruption’ come under the remit of the Chief Medical Officer?:
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 13, 2021 20:51:49 GMT
Tell you what though, it’d be interesting to know which nine kids this guy thinks had it coming:
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 13, 2021 21:37:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by tetchyarse on Sept 13, 2021 21:37:07 GMT
That seems pretty reasonable to me tbh, the default is still that they don’t get it. Still be better off sending those vaccines to poor countries mind. Can’t wait for the Dhaka vaccine resistant variant in 2026. Reasonable? It’s utterly unreasonable. As a parent it’s my job to make decisions on behalf of my children and that principle is sacrosanct. The school system and the government don’t get to bypass this by cooking up some bullshit about the school making some sort of competency call. The idea that the government and the education system can overrule decisions made by me as to what’s best for my children is insane and dangerous. They can and always have been able to, and rightly so. Examples include the contraceptive pill. Parents get a say but not the only say, and when you get crazies like the Jehovahs Witnesses and their attitude to medicine you can see why. There's plenty I do see the issue with, but not that.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Sept 13, 2021 21:52:19 GMT
I'm very uncomfortable with it. My lad is 13 and is disabled by neuro diversity. He also has congenital health conditions which mean we have to be careful about what he gets in terms of medicine. He can't make those choices because he isn't capable and a teacher shouldn't make the choice for him because they have no idea of his underlying health conditions because it's rightly confidential. Don't know how they can pass this through. I was only thinking about the healthy; confidential medical conditions never occurred to me. It’s a tragedy just waiting to happen. I’ve told my daughter to politely decline and that if the conversation doesn’t end there then she’s to ring me and I’ll fire a few fucks into them. Any pressure gets put on my kids to have the vaccine and I’ll lose my shit. Likewise. It'll be a shit show and a line will be being crossed. Because whatever your political and social views, left or right, Conservative or Liberal, most moderate people will put up with a lot of shit and stay quiet and placid enough for a quiet life and for fear of consequence, but there's one universal factor - if you start injecting kids against the will of parents, that placid veneer goes away in an instant because parents will go much, much further to safeguard their kids than anything they'd do for themselves.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 13, 2021 21:58:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by bantam147 on Sept 13, 2021 21:58:30 GMT
This thread contains wording that can be used to set our your own legal assertion in respect of Gillick competence. It might be of interest.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 14, 2021 7:14:12 GMT
via mobile
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Sept 14, 2021 7:14:12 GMT
That seems pretty reasonable to me tbh, the default is still that they don’t get it. Still be better off sending those vaccines to poor countries mind. Can’t wait for the Dhaka vaccine resistant variant in 2026. Reasonable? It’s utterly unreasonable. As a parent it’s my job to make decisions on behalf of my children and that principle is sacrosanct. The school system and the government don’t get to bypass this by cooking up some bullshit about the school making some sort of competency call. The idea that the government and the education system can overrule decisions made by me as to what’s best for my children is insane and dangerous. I read it as the child was overruling the parents. If I was being raised by somebody who thought the MMR jab was gonna give me autism, I’d want that choice.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 14, 2021 10:08:20 GMT
Reasonable? It’s utterly unreasonable. As a parent it’s my job to make decisions on behalf of my children and that principle is sacrosanct. The school system and the government don’t get to bypass this by cooking up some bullshit about the school making some sort of competency call. The idea that the government and the education system can overrule decisions made by me as to what’s best for my children is insane and dangerous. They can and always have been able to, and rightly so. Examples include the contraceptive pill. Parents get a say but not the only say, and when you get crazies like the Jehovahs Witnesses and their attitude to medicine you can see why. There's plenty I do see the issue with, but not that. Honestly, the lack of logic in this post is difficult to deal with. That they can with the contraceptive pill doesn’t mean that any medical treatment from here on out is fair game. Your argument here seems to amount to the fact that it’s currently occurring with a completely separate and distinct medical intervention means that it’s perfectly acceptable to transfer that precedent to any current and future medical procedures. This is very dangerous ground we’re exploring here and you really shouldn’t nod these things through unchallenged. As for the idea that because Jehovah’s Witnesses exist and have some whacky ideas on modern medicine having any bearing whatsoever on how the educational establishment intervenes and transgresses in what is very definitely parental territory I’m sorry but it’s beneath contempt. If Jehovah’s Witnesses choose to live their lives in such a way that it sets them at odds with the state then the state either needs to back off or meet them head on. Either way, it’s got fuck all to do with the government injecting my children against my wishes and without my consent.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 14, 2021 10:32:17 GMT
Post by Hobhead on Sept 14, 2021 10:32:17 GMT
Reasonable? It’s utterly unreasonable. As a parent it’s my job to make decisions on behalf of my children and that principle is sacrosanct. The school system and the government don’t get to bypass this by cooking up some bullshit about the school making some sort of competency call. The idea that the government and the education system can overrule decisions made by me as to what’s best for my children is insane and dangerous. I read it as the child was overruling the parents. If I was being raised by somebody who thought the MMR jab was gonna give me autism, I’d want that choice. As I understand it if the parents refuse consent but the child tells the school they wish to have the vaccine, the teachers can make a competency judgment and if they decide the child in question is intelligent enough to understand the situation the parents’ objection becomes redundant. Teachers aren’t medical professionals (and will have their own personal biases) and the first child to die as the result of a vaccine given against parents wishes will be on the teachers conscience for the rest of their lives. Not to mention the grieving parents heartache and anger, the ensuing court cases and the massive amounts of compensation that the government will have to pay out. All while the pharmaceutical companies are indemnified against prosecution. It’s madness and anyone who supports it needs to think again.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Sept 14, 2021 11:44:55 GMT
Let's remind ourselves of the number of under 15 year-olds, free from serious health conditions, who've died due to Covid.
Zero.
And the fucking nerve of the Chief Medical Officer advocating these jabs to safeguard disruption to the education of children - when he's been largely responsible for mass school closures in the past, is ludicrous.
I honestly think this will be the straw that breaks the camels back.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 14, 2021 13:38:02 GMT
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 14, 2021 15:37:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by tetchyarse on Sept 14, 2021 15:37:35 GMT
They can and always have been able to, and rightly so. Examples include the contraceptive pill. Parents get a say but not the only say, and when you get crazies like the Jehovahs Witnesses and their attitude to medicine you can see why. There's plenty I do see the issue with, but not that. Honestly, the lack of logic in this post is difficult to deal with. That they can with the contraceptive pill doesn’t mean that any medical treatment from here on out is fair game. Your argument here seems to amount to the fact that it’s currently occurring with a completely separate and distinct medical intervention means that it’s perfectly acceptable to transfer that precedent to any current and future medical procedures. This is very dangerous ground we’re exploring here and you really shouldn’t nod these things through unchallenged. Gillick Competency is not a new issue, the Court case that established it was almost 40 years ago. It was brought by Victoria Gillick,a woman who wanted to prevent children having access to the contraceptive pill, and she lost; it was decided in 1985. The Court decided it applies to all medical interventions and set out the tests that must be followed. In short, the bigger or more complicated the risk, the higher the level of competency required in the child. And the decision is clinical, so a nurse or doctor would make it. If your child wants to be vaccinated and you do not want them to be vaccinated then, assuming they're old enough to understand the risks, then your child gets the final say. That is true of many medical interventions, not just this one. I don't see what the issue is to be very honest. ETA the reverse is also true. If the parent wants the child to be vaccinated but the child doesn't want to be vaccinated, then the child would get the final say providing they understand the risks.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Sept 14, 2021 16:57:13 GMT
Honestly, the lack of logic in this post is difficult to deal with. That they can with the contraceptive pill doesn’t mean that any medical treatment from here on out is fair game. Your argument here seems to amount to the fact that it’s currently occurring with a completely separate and distinct medical intervention means that it’s perfectly acceptable to transfer that precedent to any current and future medical procedures. This is very dangerous ground we’re exploring here and you really shouldn’t nod these things through unchallenged. Gillick Competency is not a new issue, the Court case that established it was almost 40 years ago. It was brought by Victoria Gillick,a woman who wanted to prevent children having access to the contraceptive pill, and she lost; it was decided in 1985. The Court decided it applies to all medical interventions and set out the tests that must be followed. In short, the bigger or more complicated the risk, the higher the level of competency required in the child. And the decision is clinical, so a nurse or doctor would make it. If your child wants to be vaccinated and you do not want them to be vaccinated then, assuming they're old enough to understand the risks, then your child gets the final say. That is true of many medical interventions, not just this one. I don't see what the issue is to be very honest. ETA the reverse is also true. If the parent wants the child to be vaccinated but the child doesn't want to be vaccinated, then the child would get the final say providing they understand the risks. What other decision rights should we give kids over their welfare? The example you’ve given is the biggest Apples v Oranges comparison I can possibly think of. Firstly, the issue of Gillick competence in respect of the contraception pill is primarily motivated by the protecting the health and welfare of the child. It’s not done proactively or by open invitation, or as a heavily coerced incentive to allow them to go and meet their mates at McDonalds. Underage pregnancy is a massive risk factor to the physical and mental health of the individual concerned. Some girls are at material risk of domestic abuse should their parents be aware of the fact that they’re sexually active. Some girls are supported in taking the contraceptive pill under Gillick competency precisely to protect them against the risk of pregnancy as a result of domestic abuse, as horrific as that is to think of. It’s subject to scrutiny by medical professionals and not done lightly, or en masse. This decision isn’t being driven primarily by health - its being done against the health based recommendation of the JCVI on the basis of limiting disruption to the education system, despite the growing evidence that the vaccine doesn’t materially stop transmission. This is a hugely sinister development, and whether it’s accepted or not is right up the alley of what so-called conspiracy theorists have been saying for a while.
|
|