"Kinderen en jongeren worden slechts zeer zelden ernstig ziek van covid-19 met de omikron-variant. Daarom is het vanaf 1 juli 2022 niet meer mogelijk voor kinderen en jongeren onder de 18 jaar om de 1e prik te krijgen en vanaf 1 september 2022 is het niet meer mogelijk om de 2e prik te krijgen."
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 Nederland wordt de prikdruk weer opgevoerd, daar zijn we al langer tegen in de weer. Er is in dat kader al vaker op gewezen dat zaken als 'wetenschappelijke integriteit' en 'logisch denken' volstrekt zoek zijn in Den Haag. Moreel-ethisch lijkt er ook wat aan de hand: men knippert niet met de ogen om onmenselijk beleid vorm te geven. Dat toont ook de coronawet nu weer, ze gaan maar door met hun desastreuze gebroddel. Symptomatisch in dit verband is wat ze zwart op wit zetten: ongeldige argumentatie met aantoonbare fouten tegen de logica. We hebben het hier niet over een slip of the pen van een enthousiaste activist.
Zo'n wetsvoorstel met toelichting en onderbouwing moet toch door meerdere mensen aandachtig zijn gelezen (dat hoop ik dan toch maar...). Dat deze ondeugdelijke onderbouwing wordt aangevoerd bewijst dat het hele betrokken gezelschap daar in een tunnelvisie verkeert, wat zeg ik: door hetzelfde rietje kijken. De logica is fout maar het verstand staat kennelijk gewoon stil. Ze zijn niet meer in staat zijn om kritisch naar de ongeldige argumenten van hun medestanders te kijken. De ene drogreden na de andere wordt instemmend begroet.
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:
"Het gaat dan ook enkel om grondslagen die gedurende de coronacrisis steeds zijn gebruikt om maatregelen te nemen om het virus te bestrijden. Op basis van adviezen van het OMT en het betrekken van de sociaal maatschappelijke context is gebleken dat deze maatregelen effectief waren en steeds zo min mogelijk de grondrechten van burgers beperkten."
These two sentences do need to be looked at argumentatively to assess the extent to which they make sense:
- "...grondslagen die gedurende de coronacrisis steeds zijn gebruikt om maatregelen te nemen"
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): - Op basis van adviezen van het OMT en het betrekken van sociaal-maatschappelijke context is gebleken dat deze maatregelen effectief waren[...]."
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.
Er staat ook iets over het "betrekken van sociaal-maatschappelijke context" Dat is een te slecht omschreven kreet om serieus te nemen. Wie heeft dat dan geëvalueerd? Was er echt niets op aan te merken? Hoe zien de afwegingen er dan uit?
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?
Stel, die permanente coronawet komt erdoor, het kabinet valt kort daarna en kabinet Omtzigt treedt aan. Ernst Kuipers wordt opgevolgd door Thierry Baudet. Jona Walk gaat het OMT voorzitten want die taak hoort natuurlijk helemaal niet bij het rivm en zij is onafhankelijk. Zou Kuipers dan nog steeds zo blij zijn met die wet? Snapt hij wel wat er met een samenleving kan gebeuren? "Jona, ik vind dat woke-virus eigenlijk wel een epidemische dreiging, jij niet?" - "Nou... dat kan het natuurlijk wel worden dus ja, dat is welbeschouwd zeker ook een dreiging. Ik schrijf wel even een adviesje." Doen ze niet hoor, het zijn verstandige mensen.
Of stel, er wordt onder dat kabinet Omtzigt een Ebola-achtig virus in Nederland gesignaleerd. Heel ernstig, vooral voor obese mensen met een Vitamine D-deficiëntie (daar hebben vooral mensen met een getinte huid last). Nu ben ik er absoluut van overtuigd dat ze daar verstandig mee om zullen gaan - maar denkt Ernst daar ook zo over? En wat vindt hij dan van zijn eigen permanente wet die allerlei interventies van de Staat zo gemakkelijk heeft gemaakt?
In Deutschland schijnt nog zo'n licht...
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: "De laatste 4 dagen. Langzaam ziet het er beter uit. Maar COVID is geen kleinigheid. Ondanks 4 vaccinaties en Paxlovid, had ik ernstiger symptomen dan verwacht. Bedankt voor de goede wensen. Ik hoop dat het herstel snel compleet is."
Dus: superbeschermd door distancing, mondkapjes, vier Covid-injecties, Paxlovid... Alles waar hij in geloofde heeft hij ingezet. En dan toch behoorlijk ziek worden van een milde corona-variant. (Best traumatisch voor hem; als dat maar geen Long Covid wordt).
Nu zou je zeggen dat zo'n man zich vervolgens afvraagt: waar zijn we nou eigenlijk mee bezig met onze maatregelen en prikken. Het helpt duidelijk geen moer. Niets daarvan. Omikron blijft hij zien als een levensbedreigende supergemene en dodelijke variant die zelfs de uitstekend werkende vaccinaties op laffe wijze weet te omzeilen. Wat voor hem het verschil heeft gemaakt is Mondkapjes, afstand en vooraan staan bij het prikken - want anders was het ongetwijfeld vele malen erger geweest! Conclusie: er moet meer geprikt en gemaatregeld worden. Karl Lauterbach heeft nu immers zelf ondervonden dat het helpt.
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
De coronawet die Ernst Kuipers voor ogen heeft kan zo'n insteek vast wat meer handen en voeten geven.
My problem
Academici, medici, politici, bestuurders... hoe kunnen die ooit mijn vertrouwen terugwinnen? Ik heb werkelijk geen idee. We hebben de laatste decennia een klimaat geschapen waarin dit type onnozelaars is komen bovendrijven, hoe gestudeerd ze soms ook zijn. Ook mijn eigen schuld. Ik heb spijt van de keren dat ik op Rutte heb gestemd.
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.