The Extreme Immorality of Mandates for Children
The Extreme Immorality of Mandates for Children
Allow me to pose a thought experiment. Picture both the youngest and oldest members of your family. You are now given the choice to prevent certain death for the elderly relative, reducing it to a fifty percent chance of living, but at the expense of the child having a one in one-hundred chance of dying.
Do you take the risk? Would you be able to live with yourself if the child died and the elderly relative lived, let alone if both died? Does your decision change if the child is not yours? Does it change if you are the elderly family member? Do the odds even matter - is the potential of saving someone who has lived a full life worth any risk to the child’s health? If the original odds of elderly survival, before ever risking the child, were not zero but over ninety percent, would you even entertain the question?
No rational, morally grounded society risks the health of its children to increase life expectancy odds for the elderly. Through the implementation of vaccine mandates and passport systems for children, huge swaths of our society have abandoned reason and morality, and the odds - now confirmed by multiple scientists from around the world - are skewed in such a way that there is absolutely no excuse.
A recent, preprint study1, done with highly controllable data from the Kaiser Permanente system, confirms the calculated rates of pharmaceutical-induced myopericarditis in studies from Israel and Norway and counters numbers from United States public health officials. After a second dose, the rates of myopericarditis, a conglomeration of very dangerous and potentially deadly heart conditions, in males between the ages of twelve and seventeen, is roughly 1 in 27002. If you are not inclined to read academic studies, here is a short video from a “fully vaccinated” physician experienced in regulatory procedures, Vinay Prasad, explaining the study and its significance.
The COVID survival rate for all age groups close to the national, median age of death is above ninety percent3. If you take your twelve year old son to get two doses of Pfizer so he can see his sixty-something grandparents, you are taking a 1 in 2700 chance that he will develop a potentially life-threatening heart condition for the supposed benefit of saving the grandparents from a 3.6 percent chance of death, only if they contract the virus from your asymptomatic child in the first place. Given that the vaccine does not prevent transmission4, it is highly questionable whether there is any tangible benefit to risking your child’s health; it is a risk that, with less than two years of data and the prospect of endless boosters, is liable to include more, yet to be discovered, long-term side-effects.
When only 369 boys under the age of eighteen have died with (not necessarily of) COVID in the United States5, and the majority of deaths with COVID involve multiple comorbidities6, there is no moral argument for giving roughly 4,600 healthy boys myopericarditis7. Only a society with inverted ethics would suggest it. Relatives aware of these numbers, yet still requiring that the children in their family take an experimental pharmaceutical, before they may visit, have allowed existential fear to trample upon their morals.
Even worse are mayors and governors who threaten parents with the choice to comply with mandates, at the risk of their child’s health, or lose access to the public square and taxpayer-funded services, such as schooling. As with any crime, ignorance does not absolve one of guilt, and even a single child’s death due to coercion from public officials is a supreme evil that must eventually be rectified.
Author’s note: I have written briefly about the multi-generational descent to our current crisis of relative morality here. If you are looking for a deep-dive into the subject, I recommend Carl Trueman’s excellent book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, and Francis Schaeffer’s video series and book, How Should We Then Live.
Risk of Myopericarditis following COVID-19 mRNA vaccination in a Large Integrated Health System: A Comparison of Completeness and Timeliness of Two Methods https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268209v1
The study found that the rate of myopericarditis for males between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four was roughly 1 in 1900.
Age, Sex, Existing Conditions of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: When You’ve Been Fully Vaccinated https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html
CDC Provisional COVID-19 Deaths by Sex and Age https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku
National Center for Biotechnology Information (NIH) Comorbidities and mortality in COVID-19 patients https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8677356/
Here I have applied the rate of myopericarditis in boys between twelve and seventeen presented in the Kaiser Permanente study toward the roughly 12.5 million boys in that age group in the United States. This number is a significant underestimation, as it does not include all other children, with an estimated myopericarditis rate of 1 in 5000 for the general population after the second dose.