Adding the COVID-19 Vaccine to the Childhood Immunization Schedule Is a Mistake
Blue states may require the vaccine after the CDC recommends it, stripping families of a choice that should be theirs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are likely to add the COVID-19 vaccine to the immunization schedule for children and adolescents. Last week, an advisory panel voted unanimously to recommend the COVID-19 vaccines for all Americans ages 6 months and older, and the full agency is almost certain to sign off on this decision.
Such a move would not automatically make the vaccines mandatory for children: In theory, CDC guidance is optional. But in practice, many municipalities will be inclined to require whatever the CDC recommends. During the pandemic, cities and states controlled by Democratic political figures frequently rubber-stamped federal health officials' extremely cautious coronavirus recommendations relating to masks, social distancing, and lockdowns. Blue municipalities took their cues from their local health departments, which in turn copied the CDC's guidance wholesale into formal policy. When frustrated, caution-weary constituents would ask their local officials about timelines for getting rid of mask mandates and reopening schools, their answer was usually something like, "When the CDC says so."
This means that adding the COVID-19 vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule will create a tremendous incentive for blue states to require it for public school children. This would be a profound mistake.
In general, the rationale for vaccine mandates is public health: Public school children are required to get vaccinated for measles, for instance, in order to prevent the spread of measles to other, more vulnerable individuals. This same logic does not hold for the COVID-19 vaccines, which have largely failed to prevent the spread of infection, particularly for the COVID-19 variants. The vaccines do a tremendous job of preventing elderly and at-risk people from suffering severe illness and dying, but most children are spared the worst effects of COVID-19, anyway—particularly if they were already infected, which is the case for nearly nine out of every 10 kids, according to the CDC.
Some European countries have looked at the data and determined that there isn't enough net benefit to merit childhood vaccination. Denmark, for instance, is no longer recommending COVID-19 vaccines for otherwise healthy young people under the age of 18. This is not because Denmark's government was overtaken by anti-vaxers, but rather because there are reasonable arguments both for and against the policy. Thus, leaving the matter to individual families and their doctors is wise. Indeed, even in the U.S., less than 40 percent of kids under the age of 11 have received the vaccine. Most parents have evidently decided that this course of action is not strictly necessary for their children, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Requiring children to get the COVID-19 vaccine could, on the other hand, create several problems. Parents who are disinclined to give their children the COVID-19 vaccine might start to wonder whether the other vaccines on the childhood immunization schedule are similarly unnecessary—which could have dire results for public health. Unvaccinated children might simply end up dropping out of school, which would worsen the pandemic-driven crisis of learning loss. Low-income students and students of color will be hardest hit; attempts by Washington, D.C., to require public school children to get jabbed were delayed after it became clear that a disproportionate number of unvaccinated black and brown young people would be banned from school under such a policy.
"If mandates become the norm, unvaccinated children will be displaced to virtual school, home school, or perhaps no school at all," writes Vinay Prasad, a health researcher and professor of epidemiology at the University of California, San Francisco. "The harm to kids from substandard education—after nearly two years of disruption—far exceeds any gains from compliance."
Some states have already signaled that they will not require the COVID-19 vaccine of school children, even if the CDC schedules it. Given the reality of COVID-19—most children already have some protection from it, and getting vaccinated does not substantially prevent outbreaks of it—this is the right move.
Let individual families talk to their doctors about vaccinating their children and make this decision on a case-by-case basis. The government does not have a legitimate rationale for butting in.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is no rational case for giving the COVID vaccine to children. Indeed, no other country in the world other than the US is doing it. The problem isn't that parents can't choose. The problem is that it is a dangerous vaccine that its makers admit doesn't prevent the spread of the virus and is designed to limit the symptoms of a virus that poses statistically no danger to children. Forcing children to get this vaccine is a crime against humanity.
Well your statement is easily disproven. There are compleatly rational reasons to give kids the wuflu shot. 1. Pols are heavily invested in Moderna and phizer 2. The nih, cdc, and fda all get kickbacks from said companies. 3. Phizer just raised the cost of the shit to cover their losses in EU fines, they need to still make enough money to cover their kickbacks.
Silly me worrying about the health of children. Who is going to think about the bank balances of politicians and big pharma executives? What about them!!
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (ks-51) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link——————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com
OBL level commentary. Hats off Reverend.
Sadly, I was being serious.
Childhood vaccine mandate overreach jumped the shark with the chicken pox vaccine. I'm old enough to remember getting mumps rather than the mmr vaccine and even with complications from mumps (a burst eardrum and mumps deafness and ENT problems for years afterward) I don't think a vaccine for mumps is really worth it
Robert Kenedy proposes a good reason
This article tiptoes around the reason why so many parents are reluctant to have their children injected with Pfizer's or Moderna's product and whether it's a legitimate concern.
It is not about the vaccine being unsafe and totally unnecessary for children. Nope. It is just about the right of these kookie parents to be kookie. God fucking forbid reason tell the full truth about anything.
I am making 80 US dollars per hr. to complete some internet services from home. I did not ever think it would even be achievable , however my confidant mate got $13k only in four weeks, easily doing this best assignment and also she convinced me to avail.
For more detail visit this article… http://www.Profit97.com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link.......>>> Topcitypay
Fair enough, but I'm content that for once Reason is making the moral- not pragmatic- case against these vaccine requirements. Yes, there are good reasons a parent might choose one way or another. But on the other hand, that doesn't fucking matter.
There is one axiom that might override a libertarians objection to compulsory (or at least VERY VERY STRONGLY ENCOURAGED, yo) vaccination: that it stops the spread to others. But in the case of this vaccine, the spread isn't stopped, so even that moral case need not be tackled. (As I have explained elsewhere, even in those cases it is immoral to force others to undergo a medical procedure to protect others from a natural pathogen.)
The worst thing about Reason during the Pandemic was they often spent far too much time demuring about The Science! (tm). I am glad that they actually are focused on the moral case for once, as weak tea as this article ultimately was.
But the pragmatic case is more useful in persuading those who don’t share one’s morals.
Actually, if they already share your morals, there's no sense expending effort to persuade them anyway.
You've got to have all the arguments ready because you're never sure what's going to 'stick' in the mind of the audience.
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/this-is-not-a-drill-part-2
Know your stuff. If the battle of the day is a school district meeting discussing masks on children, come prepared with the goods showing the utter failure of masks to make a dent on covid outcomes, AS WELL AS the goods showing that children are at near-zero risk from covid in the first place. (If you don’t know where to find this information, utilize the network!) And once you’ve mastered the data for your particular battle, master the freedom-based principles that render the specific efficacy of masks irrelevant to the larger question of “Can my government even force me to wear a mask in the first place?” After all, you don’t know which particular argument will the the most effective, so it’s best to be prepared to use all of them.
Doesn’t stop the spread to others. Walensky just got the new bivalent booster and a month later got C19 during the period when the vax was supposedly at full potency. Only been tested on 8 mice. The 0-19 cohort has an IFR of 0.0003%. Kids are not a risk so why introduce something with unknown long term risks.
It's all downside for the kids.
Yes, even the CDC admit the shot does NOT prevent the spread of this disease.. neither the victim of the shot not getting it, nor of thqt victim '"sharing" it with others.
So the shot is not "EFFECTiVE".
Then there are the nasty long term permanent sometimes fatal rections and injuries from the shots.
When the Infection Fatality Rate in this age group is point zero zero zero something, and the infectioin rate is even lower, it would require close to a million shots to be given to maybe save ONE from potentially getting it.
I'd say make Ivermectin and HCQ availble cheap or free to parents, in doses appropriate for their kids' ages, and lots of Vitamins D and C... but then, as mentioned above, the rich owners of the drug and care facilities making and injecting would not be able to get still richer.
More's the pity, that.......
the ONLY answer is to say NO to both the shots AND to gummit skewlz. Educate yor kids at home, or maybe together with friends/neighbours, the requirement goes POOF. And your kid is safe from the ravages of the injections.
It may be a mistake, but our betters are incapable of admitting they made a mistake. They're doubling and tripling down on this "vaccine" that isn't a vaccine, they're determined that you're going to admit that 2+2=5 even if they have to kill you to get you to say it. It's the same with all their other insane policies. You will eat the bugs.
You will eat the bugs.
And you will be happy.
"You will own nothing and you will be happy - or else.*"
* Best if read in a German accent.
I prefer the Cantonese accent.
I see Joe Biden against a blood red background with a military guard shaking his fists at a black sky above.
I see Newsom dragging him off the politburo stage in 2024, as the ideological bromance with Xi and Maoism intensifies.
*happy currently out of stock
Supply chain issues for the win.
Hoodathunk the California truck owner/operators, by refusing to unionise and/or buy new rigs, are thereby responsible for millions of government school children dying from the batsoup crazy flooooo......
Has there been any actual studies that confirm that the vaccine helps prevent serious Covid cases? I keep seeing this claim but have never seen any proof. Maybe I missed all the studies that have confirmed this. Anecdotally I know several un-vaxed people who only had minor Covid cases. I know this is not proof of anything. So when I see claims that the Vax can prevent serious illness, I would like that claim to be backed up by something.
I see those claims as well. And the only data I have seen that backs them up is the claim that most of the people hospitalized with COVID are unvaccinated. That is hardly definitive proof and I have not seen the actual data behind those claims.
As I understand it, they stopped keeping track of people who were hospitalized after taking the transfection agents just so that they could make this claim.
I don't know what to think to be honest. I could see the vaccine having done some good, but I also wouldn't be shocked if it turned out to be a placebo. I do think, however, that it likely harmed a lot of people.
The friends and family of the 80 plus Canadian doctors between the ages of 30 and 45, more or less, who have had all their shots, were in pluperfect health, then suddenly dropped dead of "underermined causes" over the past year or so are WISHING the shots were only a placebo. They are not... and their husbands.fathers sons mothers friends wives are now dead.. with NO discernible cause, all within a few weeks of getting that thing poked into their arms.
NOT an encouraging track record.
I go over some of the ways that Washington state commits datacrime here:
https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/lying-with-statisticsstill
Another way I didn't go over is that we count anybody with vax status 'unconfirmed' as unvaxxed. So if you're not in the actual hospital system, you'll get marked unvaxxed. IN ADDITION, they never adjust the denominator to account for this way of counting.
Bonus: King County (Seattle) seniors are 105% fully vaccinated!
the only data I have seen that backs them up is the claim that most of the people hospitalized with COVID are unvaccinated.
cite, please? ALL the data I've seen, and that is plenty of it, have numbers like 8 out of 10 hospitalised HAVE GOTTEN ALL THE SHOTS, and of those infected who die, 6 out of 8 have also had all the shots. Go and find the data from Israel.. not corrupted by our skilful CDC and Phautchee, their data is very similar, and they've got about 92% of their population current on all their shots.. until the latest"booster" was released.. then it seems the vast majority of Israelis are DONE with the shots.,. people just are not taking that latest one.
Yes, there is decent data showing that the vaccine reduces the seriousness of covid cases among the elderly. See here for a literature review from January.
There is no equivalent data that I'm aware of showing that the vaccine has any effect on the seriousness of cases among the young.
There is also scant data (still) on the side effects and medical costs of receiving the vaccine.
There is massive data that says COVID poses virtually no threat to the young. Since the virus almost never causes serious effects on the young, it is impossible that the vaccine prevents such effects. A vaccine can't prevent something that doesn't occur.
Sure it does. Here is how it works:
five thousand kids take the shots, none of them get the serious effects from the disease, the shot works, see?
Never mind those kids are permanently harmed by what is IN those shots, but they don't get the effects of THE DISEASE. Not that group,, anyway.
With kids they didn't even both with that, they just measured the antibodies that the shot was designed to produce and called that good.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/health/covid-immunity-children.html
The agency and the manufacturers chose to evaluate the vaccines by tracking blood levels of antibodies, the scientists said.
----------
Vaccine manufacturers ran large trials to measure the efficacy of the vaccines at preventing symptomatic infection in adults. But in the children’s trials, the investigators looked at blood levels of antibodies following vaccination, comparing them with the levels seen in young adults.
The F.D.A. used this method, called immunobridging, to authorize the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children aged 5 to 11 and for adolescents aged 12 to 15.
They used a method called "increased royalty payments to the voting fda members".
It was super effective!
And which antibodies were they testing for? Against the original Spike proteins. Which turn out to be worthless when it came to Omicron variants, that pushed out Delta 10 months ago. Up until the bivalent version was released last month, we had 100% vaccine mismatch most of the year.
It’s one of the most ridiculous things I have seen. They shoot people full of archaic variant spike producing mRNA, then count it a success when the generated archaic variant spikes cause an immune response for weeks after that. They never seem to question why they can elicit an immune response for so long (the answer is that the mRNA, instead of quickly being destroyed at the injection site, survives up to several months, and migrates throughout the body). And for most of this year, the immune response wasn’t to the virus at all (which has different spike proteins) but only to the spikes from the original decoded variant from 28 months ago (the first week in 2020). The FDA should have been panicking seeing that immune response so long after vaccinations, not celebrating it.
The death rate was 4 to 10 times lower among vaccinated people who got the virus, compared to unvaccinated people, after adjusting for age and health risks. That's a pretty good argument to get vaccinated if you are in a high risk group due to age or disease. But if your risk is close to 0, improving it by 4 to 10 times is still close to zero, and the risk from the vaccine goes from 0 to something.
Counting people in days 1-40ish of the vax regimen as 'unvaxxed' is datacrime.
Counting those within two weeks or so after the injection as unvaccinated has polluted the severe disease/efficacy data. Miscategorization like this will drive "efficacy" to the vaccinated for a placebo vaccine.
https://twitter.com/profnfenton/status/1583907322921103360?s=20&t=6ddAIwKJsH-fOqohmIQBHw
I've been saying the exact same thing for damn near 2 years now
"Studies? We ain't got no studies. We don't need no studies.
I don't have to show you any stinking studies!"
In other breaking news, water is wet!
*rubs eyes*
When has that ever stopped them before?
what would the author consider to be a "legitimate rationale"?
The correct phrasing is "compelling interest", since that outweighs things like "legally prohibited" or "constitutionally banned from".
Having a CDC immunization schedule is a mistake.
have a CDC that does anything more than research and analysis is a mistake.
Having a CDC at all is a mistake. Public health is a state not federal matter. All a federal agency in the area is going to do is waste money and cause mischief, which is exactly what CDC does.
Agree. but still. spending the citizen's stolen money on research and analysis is a lesser sin than spending it on enforcement and rule making, imo.
Have a CDC with enforcement powers is a mistake. have a CDC without those powers is merely a waste.
The immunization schedule *is* research and analysis.
It's the state and local agencies that make the final decisions.
Yes and know. Most states have an automatic enforcement of the CDC and in addition conforming to many CDC positions is tied to state money allocations from the feds.
The entire debate should have been settled as soon as Big Pharma said that since kids rarely get sick from covid, they're going to measure antibodies the shot is designed to produce to measure vaccine efficacy.
Since kids are at basically zero risk of covid, all we're doing is adding real risk by mandating vaccines. There's literally no sane reason to do this -- but that's what America is these days. Doing insane shit for the benefit of the 'elite' and their buddies.
My 85 year old father came down with COVID last 10 days ago. He got it from his great grandson who is 6 years old and I think this is the third time the little guy has got it. His grandmother,( my sister) was quite upset about the whole thing. My dad has got through it ok with only a lingering cough. He finally went out today. My father is a tough old farmer who is relatively cheap they except his knees have failed him. He is double vaccinated but not boosted. I thought he would get boosted but then I realized that it was not worth the risk
The CDC should modify their recommendations based on how they think downstream actors will react to them?
Isn't that what we were pissed about with the changing mask mandates, etc? Didn't we want them to just give their best assessment and let us make informed decisions?
And now that's different because we're making second order assumptions about how the data will be used?
LOL
the CDC should be eliminated. Hope this helps.
Barring that, the CDC shouldn’t be making recommendations about experimental drugs for a disease that barely affects people under 55.
Let's be clear here. This is not a mistake. 15 doctors on this board all agreed to this malpractice. There is zero chance that they did not consider all the arguments Soave makes above. And yet they still concluded that the best thing was for them to unanimously recommend that children get a jab that meets none of the traditional requirements for getting on the recommended schedule.
This is not The Science! (tm). This is a bureaucracy sending a message. There will not be disagreement. There will be no diversity of ideas. Either you get with the program like other Right Thinking Adults, or they will make you do it.
Well, maybe this will be the thing that turns blue red.
Personally, I will consider the vaccine after the conclusion of the long term trials, and when the government transparently allows reporting adverse reactions, and after the blanket immunity is lifted.
Admittedly, not really for nothing, but would like to see full reimbursement for the ill-made, up-front promotional purchase as well. If we're being honest, there's really no reason to keep the money from that lie except malicious greed.
Adding the COVID-19 Vaccine to the Childhood Immunization Schedule Is a Mistake
Umm no it is criminal insanity. This is still an emergency use authorized medical treatment that cannot be forced on any citizen by law. While most of the evidence of adverse effects of these treatments (they did not fit the definition of "vaccines" until the CDC changed the definition of "vaccines") has been successfully scrubbed from the internet, even the CDC admits that, for instance, men will have an increased risk of heart disease and women will have disruptions of their menstrual cycle. We are told that any adverse effect is transitory and ultimately harmless. By the same people who promised us two weeks to stop the spread. And told us masking and social distancing would save grandma. Two years in to this experimental treatment we have no idea of the long term effects of jabbing it into a six month old baby who will statistically derive no benefit from it. This is pure insanity and Robbie's pathetic attempt to parse a both sides argument is just fucking embarrassing. This is at the very least a backhanded violation of the NAP and it is state aggression against our children. Call it what it is Reason or fuck off.
"We are told that any adverse effect is transitory and ultimately harmless."
Well, except for the part where you die.
That is neither transitory nor harmless.
down with child abuse! up with miniskirts!
Medical advice from junior varsity right-wing mouthpieces is always a treat.
The cdc is right wing?
Nobody here cares about your masturbatory fantasies.
By "mouthpiece", do you mean a ball gag or a ring? Asking for Tony.
You can thank your lucky stars that when your hateful ideology has been resigned to the dustbin of history, the smart, educated, intelligent people running the country won’t treat drooling idiots like you the way you treat others.
Last week, an advisory panel voted unanimously to recommend the COVID-19 vaccines for all Americans ages 6 months and older, and the full agency is almost certain to sign off on this decision.
This has become theater.
The CDC has to add the mRNA "vaccine" to the recommended list for children so that the manufacturers continue to be immune from liability after the Emergency Use Authorizations expire. Without that listing, their immunity would have ended with the EUAs. With it on the list, the "approved" Comirnaty version of the "vaccine" is shielded from liability by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
Last I checked Comirnaty is not available in the US. Are you saying that putting it on the vaccine list extends the EUA?
I mean putting the EUA version on the recommended list.
No. I'm saying that adding Comirnaty to the CDC recommended list for children automatically shields Pfizer from liability under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, making liability protection under the EUA unnecessary.
but comirnaty is not availble in the US.
It is not the same as the similar version being recommended/mandated for schoolkids. It IS a different drug. They can't authorise it for use in the US for some technical reason. If yuo want that one, hop in an Air France and go get it.
That's incorrect. "Comirnaty" is the same shit as Pfizer's shot that has been marketed in the US under the EUA. The legal fiction that they're two different things was created to address the liability situation. The mRNA shot marketed as Comirnaty is fully approved for use in the US, and has been for over a year. It has been waiting in the wings until the CDC could add it to the recommended list for children, which gives it liability protection under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Without that listing, the "approved" version would not have had liability protection. That's why it has not been marketed in the US. The previously marketed shot was unapproved but protected from liability under the EUA. Now that it is listed on the CDC's recommended for children list, the "Comirnaty" branded shot can be used in the US with liability protection, without the protection of the EUA.
Risk vs. reward seems to be a foreign concept to the "Party of Science".
If you were 65 or older when COVID hit, you faced a significant risk from the pandemic, so it made sense to take an unapproved vaccine on an emergency use authorization.
If you were 5 years old, you faced essentially zero risk from COVID, so it made no sense at all to take an experimental vaccine with unknown long-term side effects. Teachers' unions may have pushed for it to reduce the risk of transmission at schools, even if kids weren't at risk themselves, but the vaccine proved highly ineffective at stopping transmission. It was mostly touted for reducing the severity of symptoms when people caught COVID.
So, all sorts of mandates for questionable health practices, on top of authoritarian controls of society and commerce, disastrous implementation of foreign and domestic policies, ruining the economy, and amping up divisive politics.
But no mean tweets, right, Reason?
Unless you've got a really fat kid, there's really no reason to fear Covid in the first place
But it's not about the facts. It's not about lives. All that matters is the narrative.
It's like today in St. Louis, there was a school shooting. 2 people died (plus the murderer). Tragic, yes, but is it really worse than traffic accidents that kill kids? No, the latter is more common.
The two problems with 'CDC guidance' even if you are in a red state:
The blue counties (sometimes where your school might be located) will strictly adhere to this stuff
More commonly, administrators will religiously stick to the guidelines, even in red area, even if they dont agree with them, to cover their asses. They dont care one way or another, but they dont want liability or bad press if a COVID outbreak happens on their watch, so best to just follow 'CDC guidelines' to a T. My hospital does this. They just dropped the 'mask mandate' a month ago, and reinstated it already, because they would rather be hyper-cautious than have any pesky liability, even if it would be difficult to prove. I also have multiple buddies who's companies run things this way
And they will be responsible for the completely predictable rash of kids going to the hospital because of the jab.
Getting your kids vaxxed for COVID is a secular equivalent of a bris. It shows your covenant with Fauci and SCIENCE!
You can thank Biden.
You can thank everybody who demonized Trump, including your own magazine.
Biden is a dipshit, but this kind of stuff was happening even while Trump was president with Newsome and other blue state governors and mayors. The only thing Biden could do was mandate that government employees and military get vaccinated and order masking on government property and airports. He can’t order anyone to vax their kids for anything.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link.......>>> Topcitypay
Blue states mandate/ban/tax/fee/grow government bureaucracies. Shocked, just shocked I tell ya.
I get paid over ?200$? per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I'd be able to do it but my best friend earns over ?10k? a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I've been doing..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
Adding the COVID-19 Vaccine to the Childhood Immunization Schedule Is a Mistake.... unless you are a world depopulation advocate, then the vaccines make perfect sense.
Liability liability liability on the childhood vaccine they get liability protection where they can't be sued as soon as the emergency use authorization goes away so does the liability protection
But adding the vaccine to the CDC's recommended schedule for children restores the liability protection, under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986.
After Hurricane Andrew in Florida they were arresting people for price gouging for selling bags of ice that cost a dollar that they drove 40 miles and we’re selling for $10, Pfizer makes a shot that cost $1 to produce and sells it for 23 makes billions off the American taxpayer and that’s okay why are they not being tard and feathered. Cuz they need the money to pay off the politicians and the faucis of the world.
Adding the COVID-19 Vaccine to the Childhood Immunization Schedule Is a CRIME