|
Corona
Sept 15, 2021 5:43:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Sept 15, 2021 5:43:24 GMT
There seems to be a lot of talk of going back into lockdown again in winter. So not such an irreversible road map after all.
Surely at some point something has to stick to Boris Johnson.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 15, 2021 6:41:40 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. Without wanting to get into the principles of the debate on whether or not parents should have final say (I believe they should obviously) and taking this vaccine as a separate issue, the science doesn’t support this move at all. In fact, for young boys especially, the reverse is true as there’s emerging evidence that the risk/reward in having the vaccine doesn’t hold for kids. A recent (albeit preliminary) study showed that young boys are six times more likely to suffer heart problems from the vaccine than they are to be hospitalised by Coronavirus. When the CMO’s best excuse for jabbing kids is school year disruption (that a vaccination program amongst kids won’t solve) then you know we’re no longer following the science and it’s now political. To go back to Gillick Competency, are youths and young teenagers really expected to be taking all this into account or is that something parents should be doing?
|
|
|
Post by Hoochy on Sept 15, 2021 6:55:12 GMT
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. Without wanting to get into the principles of the debate on whether or not parents should have final say (I believe they should obviously) and taking this vaccine as a separate issue, the science doesn’t support this move at all. In fact, for young boys especially, the reverse is true as there’s emerging evidence that the risk/reward in having the vaccine doesn’t hold for kids. A recent (albeit preliminary) study showed that young boys are six times more likely to suffer heart problems from the vaccine than they are to be hospitalised by Coronavirus. When the CMO’s best excuse for jabbing kids is school year disruption (that a vaccination program amongst kids won’t solve) then you know we’re no longer following the science and it’s now political. To go back to Gillick Competency, are youths and young teenagers really expected to be taking all this into account or is that something parents should be doing? My son's congenital condition is a heart defect. A teacher may be able to say he's competent to make an informed decision (he isn't but another child could be) and that teacher would have no idea about his existing condition.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 15, 2021 7:07:44 GMT
Post by bantam147 on Sept 15, 2021 7:07:44 GMT
Without wanting to get into the principles of the debate on whether or not parents should have final say (I believe they should obviously) and taking this vaccine as a separate issue, the science doesn’t support this move at all. In fact, for young boys especially, the reverse is true as there’s emerging evidence that the risk/reward in having the vaccine doesn’t hold for kids. A recent (albeit preliminary) study showed that young boys are six times more likely to suffer heart problems from the vaccine than they are to be hospitalised by Coronavirus. When the CMO’s best excuse for jabbing kids is school year disruption (that a vaccination program amongst kids won’t solve) then you know we’re no longer following the science and it’s now political. To go back to Gillick Competency, are youths and young teenagers really expected to be taking all this into account or is that something parents should be doing? My son's congenital condition is a heart defect. A teacher may be able to say he's competent to make an informed decision (he isn't but another child could be) and that teacher would have no idea about his existing condition. Exactly this. I wish you all the very best in doing what you need to, to protect your son’s health. This line thats about to be crossed is the sort of thing I’ll take to the streets on - which is something I’ve never done and always been very wary of.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Sept 15, 2021 7:11:16 GMT
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. Without wanting to get into the principles of the debate on whether or not parents should have final say (I believe they should obviously) and taking this vaccine as a separate issue, the science doesn’t support this move at all. In fact, for young boys especially, the reverse is true as there’s emerging evidence that the risk/reward in having the vaccine doesn’t hold for kids. A recent (albeit preliminary) study showed that young boys are six times more likely to suffer heart problems from the vaccine than they are to be hospitalised by Coronavirus. When the CMO’s best excuse for jabbing kids is school year disruption (that a vaccination program amongst kids won’t solve) then you know we’re no longer following the science and it’s now political. To go back to Gillick Competency, are youths and young teenagers really expected to be taking all this into account or is that something parents should be doing? On the matter of this vaccination for 12-15 being undertaken to protect education disruption, this thread shows what a nonsensical notion that is, and why the rollout will create MORE disruption than it prevents.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 15, 2021 7:12:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by bantam147 on Sept 15, 2021 7:12:59 GMT
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. Without wanting to get into the principles of the debate on whether or not parents should have final say (I believe they should obviously) and taking this vaccine as a separate issue, the science doesn’t support this move at all. In fact, for young boys especially, the reverse is true as there’s emerging evidence that the risk/reward in having the vaccine doesn’t hold for kids. A recent (albeit preliminary) study showed that young boys are six times more likely to suffer heart problems from the vaccine than they are to be hospitalised by Coronavirus. When the CMO’s best excuse for jabbing kids is school year disruption (that a vaccination program amongst kids won’t solve) then you know we’re no longer following the science and it’s now political. To go back to Gillick Competency, are youths and young teenagers really expected to be taking all this into account or is that something parents should be doing? On the matter of this vaccination for 12-15 being undertaken to protect education disruption, this thread shows what a nonsensical notion that is, and why the rollout will create MORE disruption than it prevents.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 15, 2021 7:20:58 GMT
Post by bantam147 on Sept 15, 2021 7:20:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 15, 2021 8:03:28 GMT
Without wanting to get into the principles of the debate on whether or not parents should have final say (I believe they should obviously) and taking this vaccine as a separate issue, the science doesn’t support this move at all. In fact, for young boys especially, the reverse is true as there’s emerging evidence that the risk/reward in having the vaccine doesn’t hold for kids. A recent (albeit preliminary) study showed that young boys are six times more likely to suffer heart problems from the vaccine than they are to be hospitalised by Coronavirus. When the CMO’s best excuse for jabbing kids is school year disruption (that a vaccination program amongst kids won’t solve) then you know we’re no longer following the science and it’s now political. To go back to Gillick Competency, are youths and young teenagers really expected to be taking all this into account or is that something parents should be doing? On the matter of this vaccination for 12-15 being undertaken to protect education disruption, this thread shows what a nonsensical notion that is, and why the rollout will create MORE disruption than it prevents. There really is no earthly reason for vaccinating schoolchildren other than some half-arsed idea about protecting the adults the children go home to. If we’ve become a society that will gamble with children’s health to avoid a negligible risk to adults then we might as well turn the fucking lights off. We’re done.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 15, 2021 8:05:15 GMT
Without wanting to get into the principles of the debate on whether or not parents should have final say (I believe they should obviously) and taking this vaccine as a separate issue, the science doesn’t support this move at all. In fact, for young boys especially, the reverse is true as there’s emerging evidence that the risk/reward in having the vaccine doesn’t hold for kids. A recent (albeit preliminary) study showed that young boys are six times more likely to suffer heart problems from the vaccine than they are to be hospitalised by Coronavirus. When the CMO’s best excuse for jabbing kids is school year disruption (that a vaccination program amongst kids won’t solve) then you know we’re no longer following the science and it’s now political. To go back to Gillick Competency, are youths and young teenagers really expected to be taking all this into account or is that something parents should be doing? My son's congenital condition is a heart defect. A teacher may be able to say he's competent to make an informed decision (he isn't but another child could be) and that teacher would have no idea about his existing condition. Like I said earlier, even apart from the dead or seriously ill child, imagine the weight on the teacher’s conscience. Why we’re expecting teachers to make psychological and medical evaluations with huge consequences is baffling.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Sept 15, 2021 8:29:30 GMT
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. Without wanting to get into the principles of the debate on whether or not parents should have final say (I believe they should obviously) and taking this vaccine as a separate issue, the science doesn’t support this move at all. In fact, for young boys especially, the reverse is true as there’s emerging evidence that the risk/reward in having the vaccine doesn’t hold for kids. A recent (albeit preliminary) study showed that young boys are six times more likely to suffer heart problems from the vaccine than they are to be hospitalised by Coronavirus. When the CMO’s best excuse for jabbing kids is school year disruption (that a vaccination program amongst kids won’t solve) then you know we’re no longer following the science and it’s now political. To go back to Gillick Competency, are youths and young teenagers really expected to be taking all this into account or is that something parents should be doing? It's a tricky one regarding letting parents have the final say. I get the principle behind it but as an example, my mate is a Foster carer and has looked after a fair few kids now. Some of the stuff parents have either done or allowed to be done to these kids is sickening yet in a lot of these instances the parents still hold the power even though they should never be allowed to make those decisions ever again. As you were.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 15, 2021 14:09:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by tetchyarse on Sept 15, 2021 14:09:38 GMT
My son's congenital condition is a heart defect. A teacher may be able to say he's competent to make an informed decision (he isn't but another child could be) and that teacher would have no idea about his existing condition. Like I said earlier, even apart from the dead or seriously ill child, imagine the weight on the teacher’s conscience. Why we’re expecting teachers to make psychological and medical evaluations with huge consequences is baffling. Teachers won't, Gillick is a clinical decision and kids in that position will be sent to a vaccination clinic. I'm not sure of the benefits in vaccinating kids here before adults in poorer countries. But the vaccine is safe, and much safer than even the contraceptive pill. Myocarditis is up to six times more likely to happen after an infection than after a vaccination.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 15, 2021 15:45:20 GMT
Post by Hobhead on Sept 15, 2021 15:45:20 GMT
Like I said earlier, even apart from the dead or seriously ill child, imagine the weight on the teacher’s conscience. Why we’re expecting teachers to make psychological and medical evaluations with huge consequences is baffling. Teachers won't, Gillick is a clinical decision and kids in that position will be sent to a vaccination clinic. I'm not sure of the benefits in vaccinating kids here before adults in poorer countries. But the vaccine is safe, and much safer than even the contraceptive pill. Myocarditis is up to six times more likely to happen after an infection than after a vaccination. Not in kids it’s not. Especially young boys.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 16, 2021 7:34:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by bantam147 on Sept 16, 2021 7:34:41 GMT
So apparently Nicky Minaj has been in a twitter spat because she's made claims about virus side effects which include swollen testicles. Now, I've no idea what she's specifically said, but its curious how the MSM instantly round on anyone who tries to discuss side effects.
This might be a bit much if you're still eating your cornflakes, but 3 weeks after my second jab, I had a problem with on one my testicles becoming swollen and painful. Couldn't even check it my lumps, which is the obvious thing that came to mind. Lasted about 10 days and I was about to book a docs appointment when it subsided. And my wife's gone from having a very very regular menstrual cycle to one thats all over the place. Try saying anything and you're shut down straight away.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Sept 16, 2021 7:50:38 GMT
So apparently Nicky Minaj has been in a twitter spat because she's made claims about virus side effects which include swollen testicles. Now, I've no idea what she's specifically said, but its curious how the MSM instantly round on anyone who tries to discuss side effects. This might be a bit much if you're still eating your cornflakes, but 3 weeks after my second jab, I had a problem with on one my testicles becoming swollen and painful. Couldn't even check it my lumps, which is the obvious thing that came to mind. Lasted about 10 days and I was about to book a docs appointment when it subsided. And my wife's gone from having a very very regular menstrual cycle to one thats all over the place. Try saying anything and you're shut down straight away. Thats funny, my wife had a problem with her testicles after her second jab.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 17, 2021 23:39:19 GMT
Post by Pyongyang Bantam on Sept 17, 2021 23:39:19 GMT
So apparently Nicky Minaj has been in a twitter spat because she's made claims about virus side effects which include swollen testicles. Now, I've no idea what she's specifically said, but its curious how the MSM instantly round on anyone who tries to discuss side effects. This might be a bit much if you're still eating your cornflakes, but 3 weeks after my second jab, I had a problem with on one my testicles becoming swollen and painful. Couldn't even check it my lumps, which is the obvious thing that came to mind. Lasted about 10 days and I was about to book a docs appointment when it subsided. And my wife's gone from having a very very regular menstrual cycle to one thats all over the place. Try saying anything and you're shut down straight away. I've heard first hand from a few women who've reported issues with menstrual cycles following the second jab
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 18, 2021 5:53:58 GMT
Post by Hobhead on Sept 18, 2021 5:53:58 GMT
I don’t permit women to discuss their menstrual cycles with me.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 18, 2021 9:33:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by bantam147 on Sept 18, 2021 9:33:51 GMT
I don’t permit women to discuss their menstrual cycles with me. Its 2021 Hob. Its not only women that have menstrual cycles you know. Sexist pig.
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 18, 2021 9:44:01 GMT
Post by Hobhead on Sept 18, 2021 9:44:01 GMT
I don’t permit women to discuss their menstrual cycles with me. Its 2021 Hob. Its not only women that have menstrual cycles you know. Sexist pig. They can chat about it all they like, just not in my presence:
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Sept 21, 2021 11:01:06 GMT
Go on, Aussies:
|
|
|
Corona
Sept 28, 2021 14:15:09 GMT
Post by Hobhead on Sept 28, 2021 14:15:09 GMT
|
|