Compulsory vaccination for Covid-19 and human rights law
A PDF unfortunately, but worth a read.
A brief excerpt -
'Our chief conclusion is that, as and when a vaccine becomes available at scale, the Government should give serious consideration to compulsory immunisation as a means of reducing the impacts of Covid-19. There is an arguable case for the compatibility of compulsory vaccination with human rights law.
Vaccine hesitancy
A Covid-19 vaccine promises to be the best means to mitigate the impacts of the pandemic on individuals and society. Yet sufficient voluntary uptake of a vaccine cannot be guaranteed. Voluntary vaccine uptake may be limited by âvaccine hesitancyâ, which the World Health Organization (WHO) describes as âthe reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccinesâ. Vaccine hesitancy in respect of Covid-19 may arise because of the influence of anti-vaccination movements, the uneven demographic distribution of Covid-19 morbidity and mortality risks, or the mistaken belief that Covid-19 immunity has already been acquiredâ
Thanks for posting Spike. This has been in the air from the beginning, or as soon as the lack of attention to less or non-pharmaceutical Covid treatments became obvious. The only surprise here is the chancer reasoning advanced to support it.
25 Our analysis under 3 establishes two parity arguments:a.If Covid-19 âlockdownâ measures are compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (lockdown parity argument);b.If compulsory medical treatment under mental health law for personal and public
30 protection purposes is compatible with human rights law, then it is arguable that compulsory vaccination is too (mental health parity argument).
This is specious logic, as the human rights issues arising from the two situations (compulsory treatment of mental health patients and lockdown) have not been subject to testing. As both are fiercely resisted by perceived victims, it can not be argued that a new breach is compatible by comparison.
The fundamental justification given for compulsory mental health treatment is in terms of the patient lacking capacity to take the decision in their own interest - because their decision-making capacity is impaired by a mental illness. For compulsory vaccination to be comparable it would need to be argued that the population similarly lack capacity, and their judgement is impaired. What basis for impaired judgement is advanced, in the absence of a mental illness? Vaccine hesitancy, it would seem. This seems like an absurd and deceptive leap.
Lockdown is a new measure for epidemics. The effects of lockdown have not been seriously evaluated by the system of governance that imposed it. As this hinders any sober evaluation of the extent to which human rights are breached by lockdown, it seems hopeful to try to base further breaches on it.
This shite reeks of the well-observed attitude: âPlebs donât know whatâs good for them because they havenât got what it takes to understand. They need us, the competent technocrats, to evaluate what they need, and steer them into it.â
Naturally, it never seems to occur to these self-inflators that maybe theyâre not competent either; and theyâre further handicapped by a wholly unjustified certainty that they know whatâs what.
Itâs obvious that such ideas need to get a severe kicking from the outraged plebs - who are just as competent as anyone to judge whatâs best. And some of us already know that vaccines, whilst sometimes safe and effective - and actually appropriate - are too often not safe, not effective, or both at once; and therefore flatly inappropriate, however profitable they may be. That isnât even in contention, once one looks soberly at the actual record.
The best source of immunisation for a disease which causes either mild or no symptoms in the robust and the immunologically healthy, and only a small uptick in the all-causes death-rate, is the disease itself. There comes a time when the vaccines are actually maiming and killing more victims than the disease itself. And - quite evidently - the powers that shouldnât be are pushing right now to force more and more vaccines onto us, and at the same time to ensure that none of the perpetrators has any legal liability for injury caused. And this is entirely about power and profit, and nothing whatever to do with âbenign and wise leadersâ looking out for the best interests of we incompetent plebs.
Absolutely, the entire document is an exercise in legalistic sophistry but gives an insight into how this sort of thing will be rolled out, fully legal. I donât think the vaccine per se will be harmful but it will serve as an obedience test for the population in the name of âthe right thing to doâ and is the thin end of the wedge as a fully digital, fully surveilled society dominated by stop/go orthodoxy portals becomes the norm.
How would we know whether the proposed vaccines are harmful or not till theyâve been extensively trialled? Which of course isnât going to happen before theyâre rushed out, indemnified producers and all; damned crooks!
Plenty of vaccines do in fact turn out to be either ineffectual, or dangerous, or both, once thereâs been enough time and use in the field for the effects to become clear. The record is quite clear about this, though usually passed over in silence by the BPh propagandist crooks, natch. These urgent truths are exactly what Del Bigtree, Andrew Wakefield, and Robert Kennedy Jr., amongst many others, are publicising, once you listen to what theyâre actually saying, rather than all the lying-propaganda âanti-vaxxerâ slagging thatâs thrown at them.
Seems to me that the covid racket will be used to beat down the entirely justified doubtfulness around vaccines generally. For the record, I should say that - along with all the other honest appraisers - I see some vaccines as proven useful some times. But though thatâs correct, the fact is that the whole vaccine money-grubbing racket - and it is that now - has got completely out of hand, and this panic is being used to push it even further; all in the service of accumulating WealthPowerStatus by the gic-class. Nothing whatever to do with âsafeguarding the publicâ - hah! Scratch a gic and, far from concern about public well-being, youâre likely to find just below the surface a steady willingness to do away with large tranches of the global human population right now, as surplus to the gicsâ requirements. I suspect that thatâs a persistent gleam in the eyes of such as the Bellender-Gatesoids: everyone under strict control everywhere, and periodic quiet culling as âneededâ. Lucky for us that such schemes are just as impractical as theyâre criminal.
âI donât think the vaccine per se will be harmfulâ Then you want to look at the history of vaccinesâŚmany of the vaccines for Covid19 have (like the virus itself would appear to have), been genetically modifiedâŚif you wouldnât eat it why would you let anyone inject it into you? I certainly have always endeavoured not to let the stuff in my bodyâŚ
Oh I agree but I donât think itâs the purpose of the vaccine which could be saline for all we know. Itâs much more about compliance. The precedents set through this period will not be going anywhere and to that end must be resisted at all costs, particularly forced vaccination.
Sort ofâŚthey want to legitimise gmos in the public mind thoughâŚitâs a central part of whatâs going onâŚeugenicsâŚapplied social-Darwinism (some people say âneo-Darwinismâ anyone here got a handle on which is correct?), âŚ