By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
We have heard our government planning of mass vaccination, in fact, there are reports of possible coercion to ensure that everybody is inoculated. The Department of Health issued a statement last week that they are contemplating requiring people to have a “vaccination passport.” What that means is not revealed but I think that is an official name for the reported plan of the government to require a vaccination clearance for every traveller.
We can expect resistance here because this appears to be a restraint to freedom of movement. However the government can justify this prohibition for the “sake of public health” as it is doing now with regard to the face masks. People’s fear of infection made the enforcement easy.
The case of vaccination is different, however because the fear is not so much about infection but the vaccine itself. Thus in the US there is a campaign to “manipulate the public.”
According to Patrick Delaney, the government moved to “counteract this trend” of resistance. He said that Yale University, in collaboration with the U.S. government, sponsored a study to determine the most effective means of persuading Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
“The study tests a variety of approaches, such as appeals to ‘Personal freedom’, ‘Economic benefit,’ ‘Self-interest,’ ‘fears of Guilt,’ ‘Embarrassment, and actually ‘being a coward’.”
While several of the appeals are straightforward arguments, others hint at a willingness to use public shaming to elicit compliance.
One, for instance, “asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don’t get vaccinated and spread the disease,” with variants exchanging guilt with anger or embarrassment. Another suggests someone who refuses vaccination “doesn’t understand how infections are spread or who ignores science.” Another declares that “those who choose not to get vaccinated against COVID-19 are not brave.”
The findings of this study, Delany said, will likely influence the messaging of state officials and academic institutions who have discussed mandating vaccination, as well as advertising campaigns surrounding a vaccine once completed.
The other strategies of coercion being developed include the “bundling” of vaccine mandates “with other safety net services,” for the poor, including “food security, rent assistance, and free clinic services” for “vulnerable populations,” with “Black and minority communities” receiving special mention.
We have not heard of any of these efforts but we know that the political machineries of local governments are working on this direction. If we consider how they made people “positive” with the virus through quota and monetary incentives and rewards, we can be certain the machinery will work full time.
Delaney charged that the District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The “Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019,” states, “this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established.”
According to The Vaccine Reaction, “The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents’ knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated.”
The report clarifies, “If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents’ back.”
This is ridiculous because in the US a parent cannot leave his child alone at home if below age 14 and yet here the child is considered old enough to give consent to a medicine he clearly would be unable to understand. Worst, the law would require secrecy in this situation as if the parents have nothing to do with their children.
Sure, insurance companies will finance this effort but to what extent will they care for the children when something goes wrong? Will parents just leave their children alone?
Continued on Monday.
