Tip - If you are using a phone, set the "Desktop Site" option in your browser   

2021-09-23

The Chief Medical Officer has come out in favour of vaccination of 12-15 yr olds, on grounds that might appear not only shaky but insignificant.

The Spectator reviews the evidence and concludes that:

"the four chief medical officers have some serious questions to answer"

Notable amongst the "evidence" is the "modelling". We have noted before that "modelling" does not necessarily equate to "science". In fact, models will perform exactly how the modeller instructs them to perform, and the assertion that the modeller is a "scientist" needs to be scrutinised.

Meanwhile we have this from the Government's own publication:

"Some of the modelling is highly simplified but this is proportionate given so much uncertainty in the background epidemiology" 

Given the close-run nature of the "shall-we/shan't we" decision as expressed by the JCVI, a rational person might consider that this admitted level of uncertainty strongly suggests that the whole exercise would be a fool's errand, incapable of producing results of the finesse and reliability required. But I guess that the government knew that. 

I note that "Imperial" is one of the modellers. Given the utter failure of their previous predictions to come close to actual events some may think this shocking, but I will content myself with observing that even a small error in the outcome of their modelling may be sufficient to invalidate the conclusions accepted by the CMO).

"It is important to note that there are plausible scenarios even worse than the contingency scenario presented here"

I'm not sure that this verbiage has any significance, except to try to excuse the inexcusable by muddling the logic.

Nevertheless the kill-shot is the lack of any recognition in the modelling that some (possibly many) of these teenagers will have already encountered Covid in the wild, will have been infected and will have shrugged it off (as this age group is known to do) and will already have better immunity than would be administered by the vaccines.

In my book that means one thing only - "collapse of stout party".

The Spectator has done us all a real service.

But finally I do think we have to ask the basic question which has been studiously avoided by all concerned - since when was "preventing disruption in schools" ever considered to be a good reason to mandate a mass medical intervention on schoolchildren? How does a minor non-medical problem that should be manageable within the usual schooling protocols demand mass-medication with experimental inoculations that have no long-term safety profile and a short-term profile that indicates very real (if "rare") life-changing side-effects?

How many kids will die or suffer life-changing injury as a direct result? I don't see any estimate of this is these documents but is it not central to the argument?

Read the Spectators' report, form your own judgement.