There are trials underway for the under 12 (vaccinations are generally better the younger the person is hence the aggressive vaccination schedule for children) so it will be approved. Considering the backlog in the courts it is better to get the issue settled now so that the children can be vaccinated as soon as they are eligible.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Anti Vax
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Kinso View PostA.P. v. L.K., 2021 ONSC 150 (https://canlii.ca/t/jcgf7)
B.C.J.B. v. E.-R.R.R., 2020 ONCJ 438 (https://canlii.ca/t/j9z23)
Very recent cases on this issue.
Short answer: Kids get vaccinated absent clear medical evidence that a certain child should not be. The parent who supports vaccines will likely get custody on medical issues.
1) Neither case handed over medical custody for anything but the administration of vaccines.
2) 2020 case: explicitly excluded COVID vaccines and stated they they are out of scope for the order and can be revised another time.
3) 2021: 2 and a 6 year old child. This was a complex medical case that involved a unique genetic issue, specific medically sound yet opposing views.
These also involved vaccines that were of standard issuance for all children.
I with the changing political and medical views on both COVID its less dangerous variants and a vaccine that is arguably gene therapy (because that is the technology the medical and scientific community just now obtaining data (analyzed) that allows for an informed decision when it comes to children.......any court case trying to force or prevent COVID vaccinations is up in the air.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cleanSlate View PostYour assessment of those cases is grossly incorrect and out of context.
1) Neither case handed over medical custody for anything but the administration of vaccines.
2) 2020 case: explicitly excluded COVID vaccines and stated they they are out of scope for the order and can be revised another time.
3) 2021: 2 and a 6 year old child. This was a complex medical case that involved a unique genetic issue, specific medically sound yet opposing views.
These also involved vaccines that were of standard issuance for all children.
I with the changing political and medical views on both COVID its less dangerous variants and a vaccine that is arguably gene therapy (because that is the technology the medical and scientific community just now obtaining data (analyzed) that allows for an informed decision when it comes to children.......any court case trying to force or prevent COVID vaccinations is up in the air.
Its only up in the air if cases havent been heard yet. As many people have noted, judges dont turn their backs on the body that signs their cheques. That means a judge will not side against the government.
Unless there is a glaringly obvious reason why a child cant be vaccinated, a judge will order it and give the supportive parent medical decision making power.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rockscan View PostIt�s only up in the air if cases haven�t been heard yet. As many people have noted, judges don�t turn their backs on the body that signs their cheques. That means a judge will not side against the government.
Unless there is a glaringly obvious reason why a child can�t be vaccinated, a judge will order it and give the supportive parent medical decision making power.
The mRNA treatment is different from a vaccine and the government has stated that they are still trying to figure out COVID's relationship to children.
Think approved medical treatment, just because one is out there doesn't mean that it is going to be ordered by a judge.
I am a wait and see person here, need more facts on it besides this is going to take 6 months to get into a court and by then things will be much clearer.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rockscan View PostI�m not going to get into a vaccination debate with you. My point was that if the government directs children to get vaccinated, judges will also order it to happen until the government changes their direction.
People should just chill out, let time pass and see what happens before going all litigious on a changing landscape.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cleanSlate View Postchanging political and medical views on both COVID its less dangerous variants
and a vaccine that is arguably gene therapy
Anyhow, your antivax position is pretty doomed, from the case cited:
[135] Among other things, the document explains:
(a) Publicly funded immunization programs have been incredibly effective at preventing diseases that would otherwise cause illness and death;
(b) Many diseases that were once common and devastating in Canada have been eliminated or drastically reduced;
(c) Immunization benefits not only the individual, but others in the community via “herd immunity”;
...
(i) Ontario regularly updates its immunization schedules to keep current with the latest scientific evidence;
[144] For the reasons that follow, I am prepared to take judicial notice of the information in the documents from Ontario and Canada that I have just summarized.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Janus View PostI'm curious to know which "less dangerous variants" you speak of.
Originally posted by Janus View PostHow do you define gene therapy?
I am going to take a wild guess and say that you do not know the difference between how this new tech works in the body via the old tech.
Or how the landscape is changing because the data was not available but that picture is starting to be clearer. Some other countries that started earlier than Canada have changed course after initial deployment. We may benefit and learn from others.
Originally posted by Janus View PostThe delivery mechanism is gene therapy tech
Anyhow, your antivax position is pretty doomed, from the case cited:
You didn't even say which case and I am not about to read that whole case from 2021 with a swath of medical experts on both sides unless I need to.
The 2020 case explicitly stated that future COVID vaccines were out of scope, am I wrong there?
Originally posted by Janus View PostDo you know what judicial notice means?
I certainly do.
I got vaccinated before most so you can take your own preconceived notions and put them aside. I am not on any particular side here. Just chill and wait though I know some people can't help but being hasty and litigious against all reason. I don't think anyone should be litigious over this right now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by cleanSlate View PostI a not getting into a debate with you about facts. The Delta variant spreads much faster yet has less of an impact on those infected; especially children. I am not going over other variants, I don't know if being infected by the Delta gives immunity to other version of COVID. Last I spoke to a doctor not a single child in this populous region I live in had been hospitalized due to COVID (any variant or the original).
I don't have to, the government did and it was acknowledged in the filings that the mechanism of vaccination is borne from gene therapy. Instead of asking me some open ended questions it would be better if you made a statement.
I am going to take a wild guess and say that you do not know the difference between how this new tech works in the body via the old tech.
Or how the landscape is changing because the data was not available but that picture is starting to be clearer. Some other countries that started earlier than Canada have changed course after initial deployment. We may benefit and learn from others.
It is not an antivax position. You sling that word antivax, like a broad brush.
You didn't even say which case and I am not about to read that whole case from 2021 with a swath of medical experts on both sides unless I need to.
The 2020 case explicitly stated that future COVID vaccines were out of scope, am I wrong there?
You mean like the sun rises in the east doesn't have to presented as a fact?
I certainly do.
I got vaccinated before most so you can take your own preconceived notions and put them aside. I am not on any particular side here. Just chill and wait though I know some people can't help but being hasty and litigious against all reason. I don't think anyone should be litigious over this right now.
You know, for a guy who was called out for having a controlling post and who was worried about sounding controlling, your ongoing posts are coming across as argumentative and controlling.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Comment
-
Originally posted by rockscan View PostYou know, for a guy who was called out for having a controlling post and who was worried about sounding controlling, your ongoing posts are coming across as argumentative and controlling�.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
thank you.
Comment
Comment