Brickbats

Brickbat: We Don't Talk About COVID

|

A British Columbia judge has ordered a man not to discuss the COVID-19 vaccine with his 11-year-old son or to share information on the vaccine with the boy. The man and the boy's mom separated in 2016 and share custody of the boy. She wants to have the son vaccinated. The father doesn't. The judge sided with the mother.

NEXT: This Indian Family Froze to Death Trying To Reach America. Our Immigration System Should Have Saved Them.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh Canada, land of the kinda free, unless the government decides otherwise .

    1. Change Your Life Right Now! Work From Comfort Of Your Home And Receive Your First Paycheck 16000 dollars Within A Week. No Experience Needed, No Boss Over Open this Site For Full Detail...........MORE DETAIL.

  2. The judge sided with the mother.

    Evergreen sentence. The child will be raised with the mother's religion.

    1. You say that like the mother observes some religion of her own:

      "He thinks the vaccine is experimental, which it is not. It has now been applied globally on millions of people, with effective results."

      'His father has a fake vaccine passport': mom
      The father — JW — and mother — TK — separated in 2016; both parents share guardianship of NW.

      The ruling came after an application by the mother to allow her to arrange vaccination for the child.

      According to the decision, NW believes "that the vaccine is too new to know the long-term impacts ... and that the risk of harm from the vaccine outweighs the possible benefit he may receive from the vaccine."

      The father also believes NW has natural immunity after recovering from COVID-19 in recent weeks.

      1. NW believes "that the vaccine is too new to know the long-term impacts .."
        True.
        "The father also believes NW has natural immunity after recovering from COVID-19 in recent weeks."
        True.
        "He thinks the vaccine is experimental,"
        True, or not, depending on the approval stats at the time. This is Canada after all.
        So the court "rules" he is wrong.
        Science.

        1. The court could either rule that mom was wrong, or that dad was wrong. WHICH is the more DATA-DRIVEN answer?

          HERE below we can see just how "data-driven" the anti-vaxxers are!

          https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner
          Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot
          This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

          (End subtitles and excerpts).

          See? We are ALL data-driven by now! My data says the OTHER (evil) tribe believes in vaccines, so MY tribe must BAN and SHUN the BAD tribe (and their cooties) as much as possible!
          The unvaccinated are now CLEAN and the vaccinated are UNCLEAN! Civic-minded BAD! Afraid of micro-chips in vaccines GOOD! Black is white, and good is evil!

          1. The court didn't need to rule that either was wrong. Whatever happened to "teach the controversy" and letting people (including 11 year olds) learn how to think for themselves?

            This is an issue that should have been thrown out of court with no decision either way. But, Canada... It makes me ever more glad that I live in a country that at least mostly values freedom.

            1. "The court didn't need to rule that either was wrong."

              Is there some "tech" by which the kind can both get a vaccine, and NOT get a vaccine? Quantum mechanical vaccine, before the wavefront collapses?

              (I think that Canuckistanistanistan Government Almighty will LOOK at the kid's vaccine status in any case, and COLLAPSE that quantum mechanical wavefront pretty quickly!)

              1. No. But the judge didn't rule on whether the kids should get the vaccine. The judge ruled in who was allowed to talk to the kids about the vaccine. No quantum mumbo jumbo required to say both parents can talk about the vaccine.

            2. Now admittedly the following information may or may not be totally correct, since I have NOT had my tin-foil hat calibrated recently!

              However, I have donned me now my gay apparel, said apparel being my tin-foil hat (uncalibrated). I check with Erwin Schrödinger, my long-gone friend in the Great Beyond-the-Beyond. Now there, they have “tech” more advanced than ours, so my good buddy Erwin ran some simulations on arrays of quantum-mechanical computers running advanced AI software, in a 4-quadrant simulation. Here are the findings (when kitty-box is opened and observed, the wavefront collapses into one of these quadrants):

              ‘1) Schrödinger’s cat, dead, having willfully REJECTED the vaccine: Kitty is demoted to Basement Cat; Zombie cat that will haunt us from the ugly side of the Beyond-the-Beyond, for having rejected the vaccine.

              ‘2) Schrödinger’s cat, dead, having accepted the vaccine: Kitty is already living in the Beyond-the-Beyond, so now, having died again, Kitty is Promoted to Ceiling Cat Squared, in the Beyond-the-Beyond-the-Beyond.

              ‘3) Schrödinger’s cat, alive, but having willfully REJECTED the vaccine in the Beyond-the-Beyond: Kitty gets all NINE of its haloes taken away!!! Kitty gets to stay in the Beyond-the-Beyond, but, for having rejected the vaccine, Kitty is now on probation, and skating on VERY thin ice!

              ‘4) Schrödinger’s cat, alive, having accepted the vaccine: Kitty gets rewarded with a HUGE stash of catnip, PLUS 9 additional halos, PLUS extra batteries to keep ALL of those halos shining for a LONG time to come!

              As you can see, there’s what appears to be a “random” part of the outcome here. Those STUPID cats, ALWAYS jumping into boxes!!! WTF, kitties!!! When you get your kitty self into a Schrödinger’s box, you’re rolling the die something terrible!!!!

          1. "Experts" are way too confident in their pronouncements. No one is an expert on the long term effects of the vaccines or on whether the vaccines provide additional benefit that is worth the risk of side effects (and that worth is not something that science can tell you and must be an individual judgement).

        2. Right. Moreover, AFAICT, the counter arguments aren't the Mother's religious convictions. It's possible they're things she believes, but they read an awful lot like a judge regurgitating overt pronouncements from the state regardless of whether the mother believes them or not.

  3. Custody disputes aren’t toxic enough without the government injecting its biases into it? Parents trying to needle each other always leave the kid shot through with unintended side effects of their jabs—government needs to distance itself from the strain such cases going viral would cause.

    1. They feel they have to because, just like the Germ-mans in WW2, they are fascists.

    2. I like what you did.

    3. Ladies and germs, now THIS is some riotously infectious meme-spreading! It might even go viral!

    4. All I can say to all that is: "OUCH!"...But I'm glad I got mine from Pfizer so I can live to enjoy more punnery!

      Please keep the anti-malaise boosters topped up and free of air gaps. 🙂

  4. Live free, or live in Canada.

  5. Time for the backup plan.

    Teach your son that his mother is a cunt. Don't believe anything she says. Don't do anything she wants.

    1. Rat her out to the ATF. Much more effective.

      (oh yeah, Canada)

      1. Rat her out to the ATF anyway. It will serve them right (them being the ATF).

    2. I, of all people, was tempted to take a more even-handed approach to the distinction between the sexes but I freely admit that:

      JW claimed that it was NW, himself, who was opposed to vaccination, in part, because he rarely gets sick and because many of his friends were choosing not to be vaccinated.

      But the mother countered that NW was willing to be vaccinated but was worried about his father's reaction.

      "I am satisfied that NW is aware of his parents' different views, and this must be stressful for him because if he makes the decision, he is either deciding with his father against his mother, or vice versa," Heinrichs wrote.

      "He apparently is relying on what his friends are doing to determine whether he will take the vaccine, which does not suggest that he has an independent, considered conviction about the matter."

      Invokes a very valid, "Your mother is a cunt and the court is willing to enforce the abject depths of her cuntiness at the point of a gun. I do, and always will, support your best interests in opposition to that position no matter how tacitly you hold them."

      In this case, the court effectively ruled "If your Mom tells you to jump off a bridge, regardless of what all your friends are doing or even what your Dad tells, you jump." and sealed it with a "Your Dad isn't even allowed to talk to you about this issue." *chef's kiss*.

      Lots of people are going to have to literally and immediately die as a direct consequence of these sorts of decisions before they even begin to think maybe this wasn't a good idea. Even if they develop cancer, infertility, heart disease, and male pattern baldness at age 20 and it can be directly shown to be a consequence of the vaccines, the "I was just a mother looking out for my child." defense will play. It won't be until they're effectively marching kids into ovens that it won't.

      1. "Lots of people are going to have to literally and immediately die as a direct consequence of these sorts of decisions..."

        OMG what irrational pants-shitting!!! Food isn't perfect either, ya know! What if Dad points out that food is known to cause death via food poisoning? Let's side with Dad, and starve the kid, 'cause the science hasn't shown food to be always PERFECT!!!

        (Casually Mad loves the kid more than Mom does, so Casually Mad would be happy to stomp Casually Mad's thumbs all over the scales of justice).

      2. I don't proport to know a right answer in one post to a dilemma like this, but it sounds like you're going for an Obama Nobel Prize in Medicine. And you know all this how?

  6. The first rule of Totalitarian Take-over Club is that we don't talk about Totalitarian Take-over Club.

  7. Firstly, the court should have no jurisdiction over compelling anyone, whether it be a minor or an adult to take any medication or procedure against their will. The court (read: STATE) has overstepped its bounds. I don't care if this is Canada, or not.

    Secondly, you would believe that under the circumstance of a custody dispute, the child would be asked, directly, what HE wanted, not to be forced either by one of his parents, let alone the STATE, to do or not do something that may go against his wishes. They may not be adults, but I think an 11 year old should know how to think, at least a little bit, for themselves. I know, that may be construed as a loaded statement, but it's about the circumstance, not the standard. And if he's incapable, as may be shown by his statements (and apparently what the court believes), it should STILL be HIS decision - not the zealous state-loving mom, nor the dad, whose wishy-washiness makes him look like an unstable parent. You either believe your body belongs to yourself, or to the state. And, yes, you can change your mind if you decide to 'wake up.'

    Thirdly, "following the science" has become ad hominem against others for people who can't (or don't want to) think for themselves and believe (akin to religious zealots) that if you don't follow along, you're against "the science" created by the very same people - called the STATE - libertarians, objectivists and the generally politically right-leaning (who aren't party-ists) rail against! This is brainwash think. It's moronic, asinine and without, pun intended, reason. Why, in this day and age, would we actually believe ANYTHING coming from the halls of so-called government or their many tentacles that outstretch, either by direction or monetary persuasion, into all aspects of business and private life? Let alone drug makers who, by definition, are in it for the money, not actually helping people? Or does that rationale fly out the window of the uber-capitalistic standards by which libertarian-leaning people believe the world should work?

    The drug makers, including all of the little labs who worked on the jabs and the work up of bull-s**t so-called "science" that propagated the myth of a "pandemic" are all funded by big government or the insanely rich dynastic elite, that if you might remember, Ayn Rand herself, was against! These are the government funded or bedded monopolies, like the Carnegies, Rockefellers and Fords of yore, that Rand suggested would eventually lead us to a corporate technocratic dictatorship. The names have changed, but it's the same money and the same players.

    They would have you believe they are being altruistic and that "science" is settled. This is, by its own standards, an immoral viewpoint. Corporations, especially those in bed with governments, are not altruistic, and science, beyond some basic facts, is never, ever settled. To say so is to believe that as long as whoever claims the "science" is settled could, very well, indeed rule with an iron fist because "the science" is absolute, and it tells them that everyone needs x, and so x must be forced on everybody. That's their logic. Frankly, that's scary - but that's what they believe, and that's their reasoning for feeling like they're being altruistic, and those with any other viewpoint are terrorists, supremacists, or a "fringe minority."

    Stop and think.

    1. Secondly, you would believe that under the circumstance of a custody dispute, the child would be asked, directly, what HE wanted, not to be forced either by one of his parents, let alone the STATE, to do or not do something that may go against his wishes. They may not be adults, but I think an 11 year old should know how to think, at least a little bit, for themselves. I know, that may be construed as a loaded statement, but it's about the circumstance, not the standard. And if he's incapable, as may be shown by his statements (and apparently what the court believes), it should STILL be HIS decision - not the zealous state-loving mom, nor the dad, whose wishy-washiness makes him look like an unstable parent. You either believe your body belongs to yourself, or to the state. And, yes, you can change your mind if you decide to 'wake up.'

      It's in the decision. And that fact makes me think you may've missed a very big tent pole in the decision. NW spoke with his Dad and his peers and stated that he decided not to. The state's response was "You're wrong. Your peers are wrong and your Dad should be legally barred from speaking to you on the matter. Get the jab like the Stat... I mean your mother says."

      1. I'll bet that the judge votes the same way her friends do - but she thinks NW is too childish to make a decision about the vaccine because he consulted his peers first. Perhaps she is far too childish to be making decisions for others.

        And what the science really says is that people under 65 are at a rather low risk from any variant of COVID, an 11 year old is at a much lower risk, and the risk from the vaccine is unknown and non-zero. It seems to be low enough to definitely make the vaccination worthwhile for a fat retiree, but remember that, like flu shots, it only partially protects. For younger people, the proof that you get better odds with the vaccine than without it is not there.

  8. Ordinarily, a Online Game room store is a dedicated space for playing several types of games, entertaining guests, and relaxing. Nowadays, most people want to create their own playing space to enjoy with family, friends, guests and spend time together.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.