I read on Friday that almost 2.3 million Australian kids aged from 5 to 11 years can look forward to being jabbed. Scott Morrison, of no fixed principles, reportedly said that this would be “welcome news for millions of families across the country who want the opportunity for the children to be vaccinated.”
“The children”? Whose children? I must have missed the crowds chanting, ‘What do we want? Our 5-year-olds vaxxed. When do we want it? Now!’
Vacuously, Morrison also apparently said that “Australia is a proud vaccination nation.” Mind you, I can’t believe he actually said that. It must have been made up, surely. There is more that he said, reportedly. My stomach isn’t strong enough to repeat it all.
What is worth repeating is that healthy children are at no material risk from the virus. Only one Australian child under 11 years of age has died and, sad though that is, the child concerned had serious underlying conditions. In fact, I bet you would be hard put to find many, if any, healthy persons under 40 years of age who’ve succumbed. But, of course, we are in tyrannical times in which propaganda is the lingua franca of the day.
My own health, I fear, is at risk. Being gaslighted by chief health officers and premiers for 20 months takes a toll. The unconscionable prattling of Morrison and Greg Hunt, his sidekick in infamy, about vaxxing ‘voiceless’ innocent children might take me over the edge.
Following the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s approval, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) completed the monstrous approval process. It’s worth reading its recommendations. Every word counts and I’ve picked out some. Be disoriented.
♦ “This approval is based on the results of a recent clinical trial…” One recent trial. One!
♦ On the risk of myocarditis, we are told that, “the clinical trial was insufficiently powered to assess.”
♦ “The risk of myocarditis or pericarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in children aged 5-11 years is not yet known…”
♦ “Vaccine effectiveness data from real world experience are not yet available for children 5-11 years but are expected in coming months.”
♦“Clinical trials were conducted prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant and the results reflect efficacy against older strains of SARS-COV-2.”
Pardon me, this seems scant evidence to recommend “vaccination with the paediatric Pfizer COVID vaccine for all children.” And there’s more. Enter a sinister element. ATAGI weaselly notes that it “does not support restricting activities of children in this age group who are not vaccinated or have only received one dose.” What the heck has this to do with a technical body advising on immunisation? But, of course, in no circumstances should young children be subject to medical apartheid. The very idea is grotesque beyond words. Yet, don’t rule it out.
It would be a mistake to think it can’t happen here in Australia. Where middle-aged women can be knocked to the ground and peppered sprayed; where rubber bullets can be fired at peaceful protestors; where pregnant women can be handcuffed and carted off for a Facebook post; where law-abiding uninfected citizens can be excluded from participating in everyday life. And, most frighteningly, where those unaffected look the other way. Yes, it can happen here.
ATAGI goes on:
“There are significant detrimental impacts of exclusion from education and other community settings on children. AGAGI therefore recommends that vaccination should not be mandatory in this age group and being unvaccinated should not be a reason to routinely exclude children from school and other activities critical to their development and well-being … There may be some exceptional settings where the consequences of transmission may be extreme and may justify exclusion of unvaccinated children (e.g., transplant wards) but these should be considered carefully.”
What to say about this? First, notice the phrase, “should not be mandatory in this age group.” And there’s silly me thinking it wasn’t mandatory in any age group. Notice this, “being unvaccinated should not be a reason to routinely exclude children from school…” Routinely? Only on special occasions, then? Apparently too, poor little Jill, in need of a transplant, must be allowed to die if not vaccinated. Think about the sheer idiocy of this statement and weep for the situation we’re in; being advised by numbskulls.
For the information of these evident numbskulls working for ATAGI, those who are vaccinated can have caught and can, thus, pass on the disease in transplant wards. Those entering such wards should be tested, twice or three times if necessary, to ensure they don’t have COVID or any other communicable disease going the rounds like the flu. An uninfected unvaccinated person cannot pass on the disease. An infected vaccinated person can. Is that crystal clear?
Finally, how does ATAGI square vaxxing healthy children, who face no material risk from the virus? By sophistry is the answer.
The so-called direct benefits were based on a trial of 2186 participants aged 5 to 11 years. Apparently only three of the 1305 participants on the vaccine tested positive; whereas 16 of the 663 participants on the placebo tested positive. Reportedly, also, in most cases, those 16 children on the placebo developed a fever, while the three children on the vaccine did not. But the killer conclusion dwarfs everything else: “There were no cases of severe COVID-19 in either group.” Then how in the world do these results justify vaxxing?
One other thing. We are not told the length of time between vaccination and testing. This may well be relevant in judging the extent to which the effectiveness of the vaccine wanes among young children; thus, maybe, conferring no sustained benefit.
The so-called indirect benefits are where evil can be spotted lurking. Not at first. At first, it’s just bait and switch. Children, we’re told, should be vaccinated to prevent them from suffering “increased stress and loneliness due to remote learning.” Children often get sick and have to be kept from school. This they tend to enjoy (the parents not) provided they are not too sick or away too long. The problem is not the virus itself but government policy. “In Australia,” ATAGI avers, “there was a marked increase in children aged 5-12 years who contacted the Kids Helpline during the first lockdown of the pandemic.” You don’t say. That’s the problem, extended lockdowns, not the virus!
Now we come, at last, to the unconscionable; to evil incarnate. To wit, “reduced transmission of SARS CoV-2 among children may lead to lower SARS-CoV-2 incidence in all age groups … reducing COVID-19 hospitalisations, ICU admissions and deaths in the overall population.” When did it become OK – I must have missed it – for children to be put at risk to protect the lives of the old and sickly? That’s where we are; pathetically and immorally ready to enter the gates of Hell in order to “keep safe”. How far we’ve fallen.
On reflection, it becomes fairly obvious. Decadence must have been already there, growing among us. A nasty flu simply brought out the monster.