Coronavirus vaccination: pros, cons, alternatives

Continuing the discussion from Coronavirus Vaccine Discussion:

Idaho 's hospitals are overwhelmed, and they are begging Washington State to take their overflow, because Idahoans stand for freedom and have a very low vaccination rate. Washington should follow B.C.'s example with Alberta, and refuse admissions to people who are too stupid to get the shots. “Sorry, don’t have enough beds for suicides.”

Interestingly in Alberta, the daily vaccination rate reportedly tripled after the premier announced a vaccine passport system . . .


Students are due to start getting the BNT vaccine month… Is everyone ok with this?

I was wondering if any other country in the world had vaccinated it’s kids - especially as most adults aren’t doubled jabbed yet.

By “OK,” do you mean “Was there consent?” If that is your question, yes there was consent. Those who did not formally consent in writing will not be vaccinated in this round.


By “consent” do you mean “informed consent”?


As far as I am aware, no forms of torture were used when distributing these forms.

If you have evidence that such forms were completed under duress, please present it.


I said nothing about duress. I said informed consent.

So do you have anything to share about disinformed or misinformed consent? Perhaps the permission sheets were only available in Latin?


1 Like

Yes, there was written consent from the parents or a legal guardian. Not from the students, and I don’t know what the parents were told about the vaccination in the consent form.

Honestly, the vaccinate everyone at all costs brigade come across like anti-vaxers at times. It is nowhere near 100 percent that you are right, regardless of how much you believe you are. Vaccinating young teenagers at this stage is nucking futs.


Well, there are many strategies being used around the globe to deal with the current predicament. I agree that reasonable people can discuss and debate the merits of specific approaches.

My take is simply this: the people in charge in Taiwan know way more about these matters than I do. Are they infallible? No. Are they idiots who have bungled the situation? Again, no.

If one believes they are acting in good faith (as I do), then my take is this: they have looked around the world and come to the position that they want the 12-17 year old cohort to be part of the vaccinated majority. They believe that the potential positives of this initiative outweigh the potential negatives.

Will they be correct? We will, at least in part, find out. But for now, I see no obvious reason to second guess them.



The strategy poor countries are forced to adopt is not vaccinating seriously at-risk people while rich countries are already pushing booster jabs and vaccinating people at statistically zero significant risk. Even the WHO are calling this morally reprehensible when vaccinated herd immunity has been debunked.


This. If the boys in charge “know way more about these matters than I do”, then that is largely a reflection of @afterspivak’s unwillingness to look at and comprehend the scientific data, and says nothing about the logical basis for the vaccination policy. If we assume that the DOH/CECC bigwigs do indeed know what they’re doing (irrespective of what anyone else knows about the subject), then they’ll know for a fact that vaccinating kids is basically a waste of vaccine … and possibly one hell of a mistake, if more than a few kids are harmed or killed. And in that event it’s worth pondering on exactly what reasons they might have for doing it anyway.

While I’m frequently accused of being an anti-vaxer, I don’t have any problem with people who think they’re at risk choosing (without coercion) to take the shot. It offers some trivial benefit for a narrow demographic, and the optimum allocation would put those people at the front of the queue.


Once again, I do not claim to know more than the decision makers at the CECC. Sorry if this disappoints you!


How much you know, or don’t know, is completely irrelevant. Those guys do know their stuff, I’m sure we can all agree on that. Why, then, are they doing something that is largely pointless and possibly dangerous? Not only the WHO but various national public health bodies have recommended against vaccinating very young people because the risk/benefit is, at best, unclear, and more than likely skewed towards “risk” rather than “benefit”.

They must have a reason, but if they know what they’re doing, then it cannot possibly have anything to do with public health. So the question arises: what’s the reason?

Of course it’s entirely possible that they’re reckless idiots. But it seems a bit unlikely.


There’s nothing wrong per se in having faith in government officials.

It’s having blind faith that is the problem. Faith that is not based on science, but on misdirected loyalty, and probably fear as well.

A sign of that type of faith is when the ones you have faith in are proven to be not as wonderful, saintly or even as ‘scientific’ as one was lead to believe, yet one still has to persist in maintaining the charade, due to pride.

Once you grab that blind faith train, one ends up sounding exactly like a religious fanatic.


Interestingly it’s the opposite position that all too often catches my attention on this board: cynical positions that contend—for reasons that continue to elude me—that government officials in Taiwan and elsewhere are acting in bad faith, that they somehow want this crisis to continue, despite the obvious political costs such actions would incur.


1 Like

I’ve not noticed any examples that you’ve provided. You insinuated that I was arguing that Taiwanese officials were acting in bad faith, when I wasn’t.

More like everywhere, all at once, not to mention health officials, for identical reasons and in identical ways, as if by some kind of black magic. I don’t recall hearing quite those kind of concerns before.

1 Like

Well, I figure it isn’t going to kill my teenagers and they will be able to travel. I’ll take that.

The oldest gets jabbed on Friday.