Chesterton’s Precautionary Principle

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” G. K. Chesterton.

To my knowledge, there hasn’t been a single instance in medical history where we’ve vaccinated one demographic with the sole purpose of protecting another group.

Children are at no significant risk of COVID19. It seems repetitive to have to state this, but we seem to have collectively lost the ability to think critically when it comes to this damn virus.

Yet, here we are talking hopefully of stars aligning in time for an extra special Christmas present for the wee bairns:

Why?

No, why would a parent of an otherwise healthy five year old agree to this?

As a parent, I would balance the risks as follows:

Reasons to vaccinate my five year old against COVID19:

  • To protect the five year old against the disease.
  • To protect others from the risk of the five year old spreading the disease.

Reasons to not vaccinate my five year old against COVID19:

  • Natural immunity has been proven to have better outcomes than vaccine immunity for this virus.
  • No long term data exists regarding the safety of the vaccines.

Where one lands on this question is very much determined by where you get your news.

If you have outsourced your thinking to a group of professionals with qualifications in using the English language rather than medical or statistical subjects, you are likely to be booking GP appointments for little Johnny and Janey and not reading this.

If, however, you’ve bothered to look for primary sources of data, you might be applying the precautionary principle and becoming somewhat anxious about a zeitgeist that’s championing this latest vaccine push.

Bill’s Opinion

I’ll resist the temptation to post lots of links to studies and reports to make my case. If you’ve not read these already, it’s unlikely these will persuade you of my view.

We are a year into rolling out vaccines for COVID19, which is, let’s remember, a novel coronavirus. That is, it’s new.

The vaccines are even newer.

We have unanswered questions about the long term impacts on health of both the virus AND the vaccines.

What impact do either have on fertility in young people, for example? Is there a decadal carcinogenic risk, perhaps?

It’s too soon to know the answers for either situation; catching the virus as a child or taking the vaccines.

What’s a good trade off of risks for your 80 year old granny may not be quite the same calculation for your fit and healthy five year old child.

If you are happy to accept the government’s advice (let’s hope it remains advice and not a mandate) on this, perhaps recall how much of the previous 20 months they looked like startled rabbits in the headlights as they so obviously had as much idea about this stuff as anyone else:

Three weeks to flatten the curve”

Masks don’t work”

“It didn’t originate in a lab”

“Zero covid”

Vaccinating five year olds against this disease seems like a typical bureaucratic response; we’ve found a solution to a problem, now we must find more problems for this solution.

You can vaccinate your five year old children, embryos in utero, long dead childhood pets, fictional characters and inanimate objects, but I think I’ll pass this time, thanks.

3 Replies to “Chesterton’s Precautionary Principle”

  1. ABS COVID mortality stats 29/09/2021:

    – Total deaths 2020 = 898
    – Median age = 86
    – 22 deaths (2 PERCENT) under the age of 60

    Flu deaths 2019 = 40 per 100,000 (9000 deaths)
    Flu deaths 2020 = 30 per 100,000 (7000 deaths)

  2. It is almost certain that some children will die or suffer debilitating illness who would not have risked either from Covid.
    Our experts know this but will not come out and say it, perhaps reassuring themselves the numbers will be small.
    Who will be held responsible? Drug companies have been freed from litigation. Politicians, CHOs and individual doctors are safe.
    On the other hand, anyone coming out against this will destroy his career

  3. KungFlu may indeed be new, for a given value of new, but anyone who has ever been exposed to any other coronavirus, that is, everyone, has at least some degree of immunity. The idea that no-one had any defence against it is rubbish. Research does get done into these things. The media just ignores and lies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.