"Children and young people only very rarely become seriously ill from covid-19 with the omikron variant. That is why from 1 July 2022 it will no longer be possible for children and young people under the age of 18 to get the 1st jab and from 1 September 2022 it will no longer be possible to get the 2nd injection."
https://www.sst.dk/da/corona/vaccination
A ban on corona vaccines, that's a fresh sound. If it only applies to 18-year-olds; the age limit will undoubtedly be raised a few times in the future, all of course with the exception of medical indications. For example, the Scandinavian policy is again in stark contrast to the developments in the Netherlands, where the intention is precisely to offer (repeat) injections to people from the age of 12, so including children, who are being adjusted!
There is no valid substantiation. How is that possible!? Do they think differently there?
Dutch intelligentsia
In the Netherlands, the puncture pressure is being increased again, we have been working against that for some time. In this context, it has often been pointed out that matters such as 'scientific integrity' and 'logical thinking' are completely lost in The Hague. Morally-ethically, there also seems to be something going on: one does not blink one's eyes to shape inhumane policies. The corona law now shows that again, they continue with their disastrous gossip. Symptomatic in this regard is what they put in black and white: invalid argumentation with demonstrable errors against logic. We are not talking about a slip of the pen of an enthusiastic activist.
Such a bill with explanation and substantiation must have been carefully read by several people (I hope so anyway ...). The fact that this unsound substantiation is put forward proves that the entire company involved is in tunnel vision there, what do I say: looking through the same straw. The logic is wrong, but the mind is apparently just standing still. They are no longer able to look critically at the invalid arguments of their supporters. One fallacy after another is greeted with approval.
Argumentation-theoretical analysis
A crucial part of the underpinnings of the permanent corona law, actually the foundation on which the law relies, stands on page 27 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
"It is therefore only about foundations that have always been used during the corona crisis to take measures to combat the virus. Based on advice from the OMT and the involvement of the social context, it turned out that these measures were effective and always limited the fundamental rights of citizens as little as possible."
These two sentences do need to be looked at argumentatively to assess the extent to which they make sense:
- "... bases that have always been used to take measures during the corona crisis"
We now know that the main basis of the measures was based on the misconception about infection routes. That anti-scientific basis therefore remains valid because it is the basis that has also been used before. This fallacy is called: Argumentum ad antiquitatem. The assumption hidden therein that these measures also rightly in the second sentence we see argued with an official Circular reasoning (petitio principii): - On the basis of advice from the OMT and the involvement of social context, it has been shown that these measures were effective [...]."
So: the measures that resulted from the recommendations of the OMT were effective, as evidenced by the recommendations of the OMT. This does not require a schematic representation of the violation used against logic, which is evident. If you do not recognize these kinds of fallacies, you are not suitable to work with them. But yes, you don't see them so you never find out.
There is also something about "involving social context" That is too poorly defined a slogan to take seriously. Who evaluated that? Was there really nothing to complain about? So what do the trade-offs look like?
The central pillar of this government policy appears to be made up of two intertwined fallacies.
I understand very well that around me different people think of emigration. If a government uses such dictatorial rhetoric, it is advisable to orientate yourself.
Evil or silly?
In this way, new laws are cobbled together because it is made difficult for a minister to violate human rights. Does the Minister not understand that it is very important that the violation of human rights is made difficult for a minister? That's how it should be! Surely he shouldn't work around that!? Is that malicious intent or trivial?
Suppose that permanent corona law comes through, the cabinet falls shortly afterwards and cabinet Omtzigt takes office. Ernst Kuipers is succeeded by Thierry Baudet. Jona Walk is going to chair the OMT because of course that task does not belong to the rivm at all and she is independent. Would Kuipers still be so happy with that law? Does he understand what can happen to a society? "Jonah, I think that woke virus is actually an epidemic threat, don't you?" – "Well... of course it can be so yes, that is certainly also a threat. I'll write some advice." If they don't, they are sensible people.
Or suppose, an Ebola-like virus is detected in the Netherlands under that Omtzigt cabinet. Very serious, especially for obese people with a Vitamin D deficiency (there especially people with tinted skin suffer). Now I am absolutely convinced that they will handle it wisely – but does Ernst feel the same way? And what does he think of his own permanent law that has made all kinds of interventions by the State so easy?
In Deutschland there is still such a light...
Karl Lauterbach, scientist, doctor, professor of epidemiology, knows very well how to keep your distance and wear face masks. It is not for nothing that he became federal minister of Health in Germany, on 8 December 2021.
He tweets: "The last 4 days. Slowly it looks better. But COVID is no small thing. Despite 4 vaccinations and Paxlovid, I had more severe symptoms than expected. Thank you for the good wishes. I hope the recovery is complete soon."
So: super protected by distancing, face masks, four Covid injections, Paxlovid... Everything he believed in he used. And then still get quite sick from a mild corona variant. (Quite traumatic for him; as long as that doesn't become Long Covid).
Now you would say that such a man then wonders: what are we actually doing with our measures and. It clearly doesn't help a nut. None of that. Omikron he continues to see as a life-threatening super-serious and deadly variant that even the excellently working vaccinations cowardly manage to circumvent. What has made the difference for him is Face masks, distance and being at the front when pricking – because otherwise it would undoubtedly have been many times worse! Conclusion: more needs to be pricked and measured. After all, Karl Lauterbach has now found himself that it helps.
He apparently feels a bit better again. Time to grab the syringes and the kids! So what do we see again on Twitter:
It is safer to have a vaccinated person at the table than an unvaccinated person.
Karl Lauterbach on Twitter
The corona law that Ernst Kuipers has in mind can certainly give such an approach a bit more hands and feet.
My problem
Academics, medics, politicians, administrators... how can they ever regain my trust? I really have no idea. In recent decades, we have created a climate in which this type of fools has emerged, no matter how educated they sometimes are. Also my own fault. I regret the times I voted for Rutte.
in English they call this a click bait.
a headline that doesn't cover the story. but attracts readers.
in Denmark there is no ban on vaccinations at all.
they are no longer offered.
and that's a completely different story...
and whoever asks the question about evil or silly is not evil but ....
🙂 Yes that headline has all the appearance of clickbait, I admit it. Yet it is the first time that I hear of a ban, although it only applies to 18-year-olds ... Still adapted. And if you read what they write, they don't seem cunning enough to be evil. That requires a certain kind of cleverness.
@Anton: So, voted for Rutte? ... even "smart people" are sometimes sighted blind apparently; P
Well, I compare what's happening now with religion. The Bible, Qur'an, etc. are blindly observed (however it suits them) by the mild followers and fanatics. Once the conviction is there, it doesn't matter how learned you are. The inclusion of knowledge does not guarantee that it will also make people smarter. God created man in his image, it is said, and God is good. But if man is his image, is God apparently also arrogant, unreliable, greedy, envious, etc. Well, God is actually just a man? A supreme man, the Pope and entourage, allowed (blindly?) children to be raped en masse. Or Indian children separated from their parents etc.. And yet blindly continue to believe in a God and his images. So what is happening now is really just man's nature and urge for self-destruction.
It seems unlikely to me that you have ever made any study of the Bible yourself. All kinds of people and institutions that have forced or presented their explanations to you, you believe unconditionally. You are like the judge who convicts on the basis of hearsay, without hearing the defendant himself. I personally find it quite reprehensible that you equate our governments with the God of the Bible.
Thank you for your response. There is clearly more nuance in this, which I appreciate very much. Perhaps two small comments. The Bible warns against living according to the letter instead of the spirit. In that light, the Crusades were a crime.
Churches and religion are often fused, but say nothing about faith and love. In this we are indeed equals. Quoting from the Bible to prove my own right certainly does not suit me either.
Let's focus further on the topics raised here. Then we meet here this place with great pleasure, in my hope.
Beautiful gentlemen lou and Hkr, many thanks for the mutual respect. I sometimes hold my heart since I turned on the comments, I don't have a moderation team and already too little time! But so far I have not had to intervene. All sensible people, so far (knocking off) and now again.
My heartfelt compliments for that!
Also once voted for qualified liar Rutte. And also a lot of regret of course. What a terribly dictatorial frustrated man who dances to the tune of even worse EU politicians that is. Guaranteed that they have already reserved a place for him in Brussels. He will soon be able to happily continue with his destructive repressive work. But at the top of the list of the most horrible politicians remains for me the current minister of coercion & oppression mr. H. de Jonge. What he does not have on his conscience is indescribable. Many of today's politicians have been guilty of a mini-genocide. And they are proud of it too. If I come to emigrate to a normal country, I would do that. Problem is that I don't know any normal country. Maybe Denmark after all.
Well then you probably want to have this link: https://www.aangiftehugodejonge.nl/petitie-verzoek-tweede-kamer-opdracht-tot-vervolging-van-hugo-de-jonge/
HKR: I'm sorry if you feel offended or your beliefs. I am an atheist I am told. That my disbelief has been talked to me by dubious sources as you indicate is not the case. As a Christian-raised child, doubt soon struck and was fed non-stop by all the bad things that can be done under the guise of faith. Just take the crusades and the great VOC time that Rutte praises. (I also see the Covid narrative as a belief) Examples abound. But I do not want to convince you, I can only indicate that I do not put the government on 1 line with any God. If you read that from my text, it may be because I say something about something you believe in and don't like to read and then misinterpret it. That is a pity. My simple reasoning is pretty blunt for someone who does believe, I admit that, but I also have to undergo all kinds of limitations for others' beliefs, so I think it should be possible.
Nevertheless, I find the Ten Commandments very important, regardless of who made them, perhaps more important than many believers I have the idea. With all due respect, for me it's mainly about what you don't do with it or whether you know a book by heart. You don't need writing to live by the right principles, which is unfortunately something I rarely hear preaching.
Apart from all the labels, we might be more similar than you think now. You also come to this site and possibly with the same reasons and principles as me. At least that's what we have in common. 🙂 I wish you all the best as a fellow human being with their own convictions, just like me.
Immediately filled in of course.
If you think very logically, you know that something cannot come out of nothing. For example, it has never happened that a beautiful Vermeer painting has spontaneously arisen out of nowhere in some cave. Not even after billions of years. If you then look at how incredibly complex nature is, for example, just think of the immune system of man, then it is almost inevitable that there must be some higher intelligent power. The fact that people including Christians make a mess of everything does not mean that there is no God. If you look at all the misery in this world, the atheists understand all too well. But also atheism is not logical and therefore a kind of religion.
Be glad you don't have to have a prickly paste
🙂 I don't know anyone with prickly grass puff...
Interesting but may I ask to keep it on-topic? Before you know it, we get caught up in theosophical, political or otherwise ideological disagreements. That distracts from what this blog is about. Sorry!
It is not a ban, so this reporting is not correct.
The literal translation from Danish into Dutch:
"Children and adolescents only very rarely become seriously ill from COVID-19 with the omicron variant. Therefore, from 1 July 2022, it will no longer be possible for children and young people under the age of 18 to get the 1st jab, and from 1 September 2022 it will no longer be possible to get the 2nd jab. Quite a few children with a particularly increased risk of a serious course will continue to have the option of vaccination after an individual assessment by a doctor."
I think that is a somewhat semantic issue.
If a 16-year-old does it secretly anyway, he deceives a nonchalant GGD-er or something falls off the truck – is that allowed? Can a GGD employee inject his own 7, 9, and 12-year-old children? Is he also insured, etc.? A child then dies, who is liable? Was he allowed to do that or was he not allowed to?
People are not so likely to do that so it does not seem to be forbidden.
Alcohol is also not allowed to have 18-year-olds. Maybe on doctor's prescription, just like adults morphine, no idea. In my opinion, that is really a ban.
"That's just not allowed, that's forbidden," you say to your child.
(my interpretation) As I read it, it is indeed a ban on the provision of the Vaccine by the official autoriteiten.Net if Ivermectin should not be prescribed against Covid. The directive of providing has changed and one must work according to the guidelines. However, if they can get the jab across the border, nothing criminal has happened. Just like foreign pot smokers in Amsterdam don't get a ticket when they're back home, I assume.
Violating the guidelines is prohibited, so prohibition in the title is, in my opinion, entirely justified. Officials usually say things as unclearly as possible, which causes confusion. One then hopes that one will discuss the dots and the commas instead of the content and that is the goal. That almost always works and I speak from experience.
What I resent in this case is that the power suddenly no longer lies with the judiciary or substantive expert assessment of a doctor, but with politics. Without a specific law, they can adjust the right to medicines and medicine through new guidelines. Prescribing Off Label is made punishable without evidence and correct research. The NHG is one such organization that has now become a political component. So we are heading towards China and Russia as far as our freedom is concerned.
That's how I see it. I also understand the objection from the other side, but I deliberately wanted to focus it. The government can say "it is no longer possible" but that is really a policy line, not an observation. If it continues to happen, the government will have to take enforcement action to make it impossible. In practice, you can call that "a ban".
Our government is doing very wrong on many fronts. Take the most recent action by Minister Kuipers, about what he wants to impose on GPs. A very dangerous man. But it will come. Within our family we have been terrorized for years by local and national government, because we refused to cheat with care money. Fortunately, we keep all correspondence and we make everything including the letters public with several ministers.
The national media has also picked up on this and is on top of it.