COVID 19 GLOBAL

[Nightcrawler]

8 minutes ago, Rompho Ray said:

Well, why is that?  In what prior instance was this the case?

Between 1967 and 1970 there was a flu pandemic, H3N2 (commonly referred to as the "Hong Kong Flu" at the time, and without anyone being called a "racist"), that claimed ~50 million lives worldwide, including ~700,000 in the US.  The only thing I remember from that period of time is Woodstock; the government was not "slated" for "allowing" it.

Why?  What was so different about the Bat Soup Flu?

Well for a start, it claimed up to 5 million deaths. Maybe you ate getting confused with the Spanish Flu virus in 1914.

That said, there are probably a number of factors involved.

Firstly, in 1968 there wasn't the advanced scientific technology that exists today, and it is unlikely that research and vaccine production could have been available as it is today. Many people in affected areas did wear masks. 

Perhaps the reason  that fairly quick and drastic measures were taken during the Covid pandemic were lessons learnt from H3N2, to try and avoid a repetition  

Talking of the Spanish Flu, which stated in US, without being racist 😁😁, there was very little done to protect people, and many died worldwide as a result. Some people did wear masks, but they were not available in large numbers during that time. 

[Rompho Ray]

18 minutes ago, Nightcrawler said:

Well for a start, it claimed up to 5 million deaths...etc.

What you post is true, but none of it was known about the Bat Soup Flu at the beginning.  Yet, governments closed down their countries almost immediately upon detecting the first cases, and in the US the lockdowns started ~3 months later, before there had been a significant number of deaths.

Also, it's now known that many of the early BSF deaths were avoidable.  Especially, BSF patients were housed in nursing homes, and we now know that the elderly are a primary demographic for death from the BSF. 

Also, early guidance was to use respirators for some strange reason, and these appear to have caused a large number of unnecessary deaths.

Why the difference in the earliest responses between the BSF and H3N2?  And, if we hadn't made the early mistakes, would the death toll have been anywhere near as high?

I read a substack blog by a rather eccentric but obviously intelligent guy who, while he's anonymous, is clearly some sort of statistician.  He has posted a lot of data-packed articles on the Bat Soup Flu since the beginning.  Lately he's been going back and looking at it retrospectively based on what we know now.

Yes, yes, I know.  But, suspend your resistance to alternative ideas and give this article a try:

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/iatrogenic-deaths-was-it-mishandling

"the closer i look at this, the more it looks to me like the huge killer here was the truly nasty combo of bad policy on care homes, hospitals, and vents and the massive suppression of effective medicines and health aids. covid became deadly because we lost our collective minds and short circuited the functioning of modern medicine.

it looks like the virus did a fair bit of killing, but it was not because the virus was inherently unusually deadly, it’s that we made it so through mishandling.

this was an own-goal."

Again, this won't confirm your priors, and it's a slog to read.  However, I think you'll appreciate the thoroughness of his presentation.  

Go on, give it a try.  

Edited May 4, 2023 by Rompho Ray

[Bazle]

Everyone was taking a step into the unknown. Looking at things retrospectively is easy, but the poor sods who had to make decisions in real time had tough choices. 

However, I believe much of the Western world was misled, mainly for the benefit of "Big Pharma". 

The alternative would probably have been to follow a course much as Sweden did. For an objective analysis of that, read here: theconversation.com/amp/did-swedens-controversial-covid-strategy-pay-off-in-many-ways-it-did-but-it-let-the-elderly-down-188338?espv=1

[forcebwithu]

8 hours ago, Rompho Ray said:

What you post is true, but none of it was known about the Bat Soup Flu at the beginning.  Yet, governments closed down their countries almost immediately upon detecting the first cases, and in the US the lockdowns started ~3 months later, before there had been a significant number of deaths.

Also, it's now known that many of the early BSF deaths were avoidable.  Especially, BSF patients were housed in nursing homes, and we now know that the elderly are a primary demographic for death from the BSF. 

Also, early guidance was to use respirators for some strange reason, and these appear to have caused a large number of unnecessary deaths.

Why the difference in the earliest responses between the BSF and H3N2?  And, if we hadn't made the early mistakes, would the death toll have been anywhere near as high?

I read a substack blog by a rather eccentric but obviously intelligent guy who, while he's anonymous, is clearly some sort of statistician.  He has posted a lot of data-packed articles on the Bat Soup Flu since the beginning.  Lately he's been going back and looking at it retrospectively based on what we know now.

Yes, yes, I know.  But, suspend your resistance to alternative ideas and give this article a try:

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/iatrogenic-deaths-was-it-mishandling

"the closer i look at this, the more it looks to me like the huge killer here was the truly nasty combo of bad policy on care homes, hospitals, and vents and the massive suppression of effective medicines and health aids. covid became deadly because we lost our collective minds and short circuited the functioning of modern medicine.

it looks like the virus did a fair bit of killing, but it was not because the virus was inherently unusually deadly, it’s that we made it so through mishandling.

this was an own-goal."

Again, this won't confirm your priors, and it's a slog to read.  However, I think you'll appreciate the thoroughness of his presentation.  

Go on, give it a try.  

The article does a very good job at analyzing the stats during the pandemic. I look forward to other, peer reviewed studies that will hopefully be published in the not too distant future. I think we stand to learn a great deal by taking an honest, scientific look at what worked and what didn't.

I'm going to be pedantic though and knock off a point for the author of the article. What's with the lack of sentence capitalization in the article? The lack of capitalization detracted from what was otherwise a well written article.

[fygjam]

9 hours ago, Rompho Ray said:

That depends on your definition of a vaccine "working".  

Up until the Bat Soup Flu dem-panic ...err, pandemic, a vaccine was defined thus:

Http://web.archive.Org/web/20120710132002/Https://Www.cdc.Gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.Htm

Immunization: The process by which a person or animal becomes protected against a disease. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.

That is clearly not what was said in your quotation.  The Bat Soup Flu "vaccines" don't prevent infection or spread, so they don't work by definition of a vaccine "working".

It also doesn't help that the people in charge of promoting the "vaccines" during the dem-panic later admitted that they knew the vaccines didn't work, by that definition.

I accept the terms commonly used by vaccinologists and immunologists of sterilizing immunity and functional immunity when considering whether a vaccine "works". Perhaps this will help you to understand.

What level of immunity should we expect from vaccines?

Two main considerations associated with infection are (1) whether or not the infection will lead to disease and (2) whether or not the infection can be transmitted to others. Vaccines do not always address both.

"Sterilizing immunity" has been held up as an ideal outcome, in which immunity as a result of previous infection or vaccination completely prevents a pathogen from replicating in the body. Because the pathogen cannot replicate, it will not cause disease or be transmitted to others.

"Functional immunity" means that a person may get infected (or reinfected) by a pathogen, but their immune system will be able to respond quickly enough to keep disease from occurring or becoming severe. An infected person with functional immunity may still be able to transmit the pathogen to others, even if they show no symptoms.

Sterilizing immunity is extremely rare and may even be impossible to demonstrate. This is because it is difficult to identify people who have been infected when they do not show any symptoms. Sterilizing immunity also is not associated with viruses that attack the mucous membranes (the tissue lining body cavities such as respiratory passages), like SARS-CoV-2. Thus, as vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are being developed, the focus has been on preventing COVID-19 rather than achieving sterilizing immunity.

https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/covid-19-coronavirus-sars-cov-2/vaccines

The terms sterilizing immunity and functional immunity were in use long before 2019.

Consider this analogy.

Is a tactical vest (body armour) required to

1. Stop the wearer from being shot. (sterilizing immunity)
2. Mitigate the more deleterious effects of being shot, serious injury, hospitalization, death. (functional immunity)

This distinction between levels of immunity is well recognised by those who work in the field of immunology. Not so much by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.

If you are unable to accept the distinction then any further discussion of whether Covid-19 vaccines worked or not is pointless.

 

 

[Rompho Ray]

10 hours ago, forcebwithu said:

What's with the lack of sentence capitalization in the article? The lack of capitalization detracted from what was otherwise a well written article.

It's just a style quirk he adopted.  I don't care for it either, but the data is more important.

[Rompho Ray]

11 hours ago, fygjam said:

If you are unable to accept the distinction then any further discussion of whether Covid-19 vaccines worked or not is pointless.

Any explanation for the fact that the CDC changed their definition of "vaccine" multiple times, but only eliminated claims of "sterilizing immunity" after it was discovered that the BSF vaccines didn't work?

2012:

Http://web.archive.Org/web/20120710132002/Https://Www.cdc.Gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.Htm

Immunization: The process by which a person or animal becomes protected against a disease. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

Vaccination: Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease.

Vaccine: A product that produces immunity therefore protecting the body from the disease. Vaccines are administered through needle injections, by mouth and by aerosol.

2015:

Http://Web.archive.Org/web/20150214043055/Https://Www.cdc.Gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.Htm

Immunity: Protection from an infectious disease. If you are immune to a disease, you can be exposed to it without becoming infected.

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Immunization: A process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination. This term is often used interchangeably with vaccination or inoculation.

Prior to August, 2021:

Http://web.archive.Org/web/20210826113846/Https:/Www.cdc.Gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.Htm

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but can also be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Current as of September 2021:

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Vaccination: The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Maybe this will help:

Https://technofog.substack.Com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine

"CDC emails we obtained via the Freedom of Information Act reveal CDC worries with how the performance of the COVID-19 vaccines didn’t match the CDC’s own definition of 'vaccine'/'vaccination'. The CDC’s Ministry of Truth went hard at work in the face of legitimate public questions on this issue.

In one August 2021 e-mail, a CDC employee cited to complaints that 'Right-wing covid-19 deniers are using your ‘vaccine’ definition to argue that mRNA vaccines are not vaccines…'"

More at link.  

Given that your source was written during this time period, I assume you understand that it could be part of the same public relations effort, and have nothing to do with real science?

If you don't, I suppose you may be right:  There is no point in us discussing this.

Also, looking at your article, it's clearly gibberish.  To take just one example, it says:

"Sterilizing immunity is extremely rare and may even be impossible to demonstrate. This is because it is difficult to identify people who have been infected when they do not show any symptoms."

This is complete nonsense.  First, you can't "identify people who have been infected" quite simply because NOBODY GETS INFECTED IF THEY HAVE STERILIZING IMMUNITY.  Also, you identify people who SHOULD have been infected by PURPOSELY EXPOSING THEM TO THE ANTIGEN, then testing if they develop an infection, or if they exhibit an immune response.  Further, you don't identify people who might be infected by checking if they have symptoms, you check for the presence of the antigen or antibodies in his blood.

However, they ARE kind enough to admit that I was right in saying that there can be no such thing as a "vaccine" against the Bat Soup Flu:

"Sterilizing immunity also is not associated with viruses that attack the mucous membranes (the tissue lining body cavities such as respiratory passages), like SARS-CoV-2."

Correct.  Given that the correct definition of "vaccine" (which everyone used until the inconvenient truth came out) is that it prevents infection, i.e. provides sterilizing immunity, the Bat Soup Flu "vaccines" DON'T WORK, AND CAN'T WORK.

Now, if you're still with me, it's well known what happens if you "vaccinate" people with potions that don't provide sterilizing immunity:  It makes antigens mutate until they can't be controlled by the "vaccine".  However, often the body's immune response is locked onto the original antigen, which epidemiologists call "original antigenic sin".  And that appears to explain why the Omicron variant completely evaded the "vaccines", resulting in the need for "multivalent" "vaccines", and 23,409,867,358,280,954,820 "boosters".

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230113/Recent-findings-on-original-antigenic-sin-and-SARS-CoV-2.aspx

"Due to OAS, neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers adequate to cross-neutralize yet-to-emerge SARS-CoV-2 variants might be attained for a brief period, post-vaccination or boosting with original S antigens. Moreover, homologous boosting of S antigen-specific responses by recurrent vaccination or reinfections by ancestral strains might trigger their immune imprinting resulting in an OAS-like response upon exposure to new variants. Likewise, the relatively attenuated response of vaccinated individuals infected with the Delta/Alpha variants upon exposure to variant-specific epitopes might be due to OAS.

On the other hand, hybrid immunity acquired by vaccination and infection raises the overall nAb titers that neutralize SARS-CoV-2 variants, including Omicron, compared with vaccination. Thus, mild breakthrough infections might offer adequate immune protection against circulating and future SARS-CoV-2 variants. However, relying alone on this protection poses risks for high-risk populations, such as immunocompromised individuals."

So, not only do the "vaccines" not work, they are in fact harmful to populations who take them because they force mutation of the virus while impeding or preventing the body from establishing a broad spectrum immunity to variants of the original antigen.

In layman's terms:  Dat ain't good.

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by Rompho Ray

[Rompho Ray]

16 hours ago, Bazle said:

Everyone was taking a step into the unknown.

Sorry if I seem argumentative, but how so?  They certainly sold it to us that way, but it absolutely wasn't the first pandemic caused by a respiratory virus, and in fact it wasn't even the first coronavirus-caused pandemic, or even the first SARS-CoV pandemic!  

16 hours ago, Bazle said:

However, I believe much of the Western world was misled, mainly for the benefit of "Big Pharma". 

Yep, that and also it allowed governments to do things like stamp out the protests in France and Hong Kong, and generally run a full-scale game-out of what would happen if they tried to impose marital law, impose medical "mandates", punish dissent by restricting access to the banking system, restrict travel, temporarily re-work capitalist economies into drain/drone pseudo-socialism, etc. 

Fortunately, none of the latter experiments worked very well (well, except maybe in Canada).  UNfortunately, the world recession the experiments caused will take a while to sort out.

16 hours ago, Bazle said:

The alternative would probably have been to follow a course much as Sweden did.

Which is pretty much how the world handled these things before. 

Pandemics suck and kill a lot of people and that's bad.  But, how we handled this one failed and might have caused more deaths than the Bat Soup Flu would have caused if we had just let it run its course. 

Sad that we had to re-learn the lessons that a) there is no such thing as a "vaccine" against viruses of this type, and b) pandemics are nearly always resolved before the vaccines that would have stopped them can realistically be produced, proven safe, and given to enough people.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Rompho Ray

[Zambo]

1 hour ago, Rompho Ray said:

Not only do the "vaccines" not work, they are in fact harmful to populations who take them because they force mutation of the virus while impeding or preventing the body from establishing a broad spectrum immunity to variants of the original antigen.

COVID19 vaccinations have been a disappointment. Before this we tended to think of childhood vaccines as being 100% effective, if that was really the case we would be closer to elimination of more diseases. We also frequently see announcements that not taking a full dose of antibiotics contributes to a rise in antibiotic resistance - vaccines are not antibiotics.

When the COVID19 pandemic began several governments including the UK considered riding it out and aiming for herd immunity, some did try. However, and whether this is right or wrong i doubt we will ever know, nearly all governments decided to embark on programmes of lockdown, social distancing and public education to control the spread and avoid overrun of their health systems.

The reason for the rapid, and in several cases devastating, rise in infections was that there was no natural immunity to the new coronavirus COVID19. The huge number of infections is the factor that promoted new variants, this had started before vaccines were introduced - the more infections the more variants.

The vaccination levels in some countries are still low, not high enough to provide herd resistance. This is keeping up the infection levels and for that reasons variants will remain high. Vaccines if fully adopted - say 80% - will control the infections and severity of the cases. This will provide the best, but not perfect, result.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Zambo
Missed "would" out first para

[Nightcrawler]

On a lighter note,I am just imagining if another virus pandemic erupts and the Government put out a statement to.the people

" the chances are, that most of you will get infected, unless you stay in complete isolation in your house, flat or room and wash everything thoroughly that is delivered. 

Masks, vaccines will be totally useless, so don't bother with them. There is a good chance of you becoming very ill and possibly death, especially if you are elderly, have a poor immune system or recieving Chemotherapy for cancer. But don't worry because you are likely to die soon anyway  

If you are very lucky to get a hospital bed for treatment after becoming extremely ill, then there is a chance that you may live. 

But not to worry, as millions died of the Spanish and Hong Kong Flus and its just nature's way. 

Just carry on as usual, ignore any advice from your GP and hope to hell that you only have mild symptoms. 

Now's the time to make funeral and Will arrangements. 

Do not get vaccinated or that will be dangerous to your health and dont waste your money on face masks. 

The good news is that only 24 thousand people died in Sweden during the last pandemic

Jolly good luck to all of you, and don't forget, we are all going to die sometime, but for some that may happen prematurely, so you may as well blow all your savings now and live for the moment"

Government Health Warning 

[Krapow]

32 minutes ago, Rompho Ray said:

Sorry if I seem argumentative

 

Now there's no point in saying that, though it made me laugh ...

 

 

[Krapow]

And just like that, it's gone ...

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared that Covid-19 no longer represents a "global health emergency".

The statement represents a major step towards ending the pandemic and comes three years after it first declared its highest level of alert over the virus.

Officials said the virus' death rate had dropped from a peak of more than 100,000 people per week in January 2021 to just over 3,500 on 24 April.

Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said "at least 20 million" had died.

 

[Rompho Ray]

18 minutes ago, Nightcrawler said:

On a lighter note,I am just imagining if another virus pandemic erupts and the Government put out a statement to.the people

I have no intention of "Mangosteeninging" this thread, but equally funny would be a reductio ad absurdium of what we actually did this time:

"First we're going to take the first few infected people we detect and lock them together with uninfected senior citizens, despite knowing from other countries that the virus is mostly killing seniors.  Then we're going to put people on ventilators and only stop doing that when more people die from the ventilators than are dying from the virus.  Then we'll call people 'racists' for naming the virus after where it came from like we've always done.  Then we're going to force everyone to stay home from work, that is, unless they work for gigantic corporations who pay a lot of taxes, or they work in various service industries whose services we need, because that makes them immune. Then we'll develop 'vaccines' that don't provide immunity, and force people to take them every 6 months, even after we discover that they are harming a lot of people (but that's OK because we'll ignore the evidence of that and call people 'antivaxxers' if they notice)...etc."

[Rompho Ray]

3 minutes ago, Krapow said:

Now there's no point in saying that, though it made me laugh ...

Admit it:  You miss Mangosteen.  

[forcebwithu]

43 minutes ago, Rompho Ray said:

Sorry if I seem argumentative, but how so?  They certainly sold it to us that way, but it absolutely wasn't the first pandemic caused by a respiratory virus, and in fact it wasn't even the first coronavirus-caused pandemic, or even the first SARS-CoV pandemic!  

Yep, that and also it allowed governments to do things like stamp out the protests in France and Hong Kong, and generally run a full-scale game-out of what would happen if they tried to impose marital law, impose medical "mandates", punish dissent by restricting access to the banking system, restrict travel, temporarily re-work capitalist economies into drain/drone pseudo-socialism, etc. 

Fortunately, none of the latter experiments worked very well (well, except maybe in Canada).  UNfortunately, the world recession the experiments caused will take a while to sort out.

Which is pretty much how the world handled these things before. 

Pandemics suck and kill a lot of people and that's bad.  But, how we handled this one failed and might have caused more deaths than the Bat Soup Flu would have caused if we had just let it run its course. 

Sad that we had to re-learn the lessons that a) there is no such thing as a "vaccine" against viruses of this type, and b) pandemics are nearly always resolved before the vaccines that would have stopped them can realistically be produced, proven safe, and given to enough people.

I hadn't looked into it before, but a search on recent studies comparing SARS to Covid came up with this.

SARS-CoV-2 before and after Omicron: two different viruses and two different diseases?

I'll not attempt to quote selected text from the study as the study makes for an interesting read as a whole. But as the title implies, SARS compared to COVID is, in some respects, an apples to oranges comparison.

[Rompho Ray]

16 minutes ago, forcebwithu said:

But as the title implies, SARS compared to COVID is, in some respects, an apples to oranges comparison.

[pedantic mode]

Well, that's not exactly what the source is doing, at least it's not how I'm reading it.  The first sentence in the "background" section says this:

"At the end of 2019 a new coronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), originated from a spillover and appeared for the first time in a non-immune population, spreading quickly around the world and causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ...etc."

That is, SARS-CoV2 is the virus, and COVID-19 is the disease it causes.  Compare to the distinction between the HIV virus and AIDS, the disease it causes.

[/pedantic mode]

I took a quick look.  I think what they're arguing is that the Omicron variant is so genetically different from the original virus strain that it could be considered a new virus.

I found reading that a slog and didn't get all that far, but what I did read I didn't find convincing.  Maybe I'll get a second wind and try again later.

[Rompho Ray]

BTW, I'm not going to camp on this thread, much to everyone's relief I'm sure!

[Zambo]

I'm not a medical professional or a math prodigy but i expect a simple solution to one of the puzzles about vaccine efficacy and development of new variants would be to review the region/countries where variants are first detected against the vaccination % in those same countries. A third variable could include the infection rates around the same timeline as the detection of the variant.

I think the origin of variants is known. Conspiracy theorists thrive on what "they" might be hiding.

[Nightcrawler]

10 minutes ago, Rompho Ray said:

BTW, I'm not going to camp on this thread, much to everyone's relief I'm sure!

Just as well, I have not installed my Surrendershop software on my new laptop😄😄😄

Yet

[Rompho Ray]

2 minutes ago, Zambo said:

I'm not a medical professional or a math prodigy but i expect a simple solution to one of the puzzles about vaccine efficacy and development of new variants would be to review the region/countries where variants are first detected against the vaccination % in those same countries ...etc.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/archive

The guy who writes the articles in that substack is at least one and probably both of those, and has written extensively on what you're asking about.  There are a lot of articles on different subjects on his substack, so if you're interested in reading his analysis of this you may have to use the search function.

[KhunDon]

😟 I hour ago, I signed the consent form for my 12 year old son to have the HPV virus injection, to be given to him at school next week. 
Right or wrong decision?

Having been stuck in the arm as a young child with every vaccine known to man at the time, have I benefited from them?, I suspect so, but as I never caught any of the diseases that were prevalent at the time, I’ll never really know for sure. 
The same applies to Covid, despite me having had several Vaccines, I’ll never know if I benefited or not. 

 

[Rompho Ray]

2 minutes ago, Nightcrawler said:

Just as well, I have not installed my Surrendershop software on my new laptop

SHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!  I can hear the clanking of chains coming from the corner of basement where I keep Mangosteen!  

[Nightcrawler]

1 minute ago, Rompho Ray said:

SHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!  I can hear the clanking of chains coming from the corner of basement where I keep Mangosteen!  

Whatever you do, don't mention the word P^mp to him 😁😁😁😁😁

[Rompho Ray]

7 minutes ago, KhunDon said:

I hour ago, I signed the consent form for my 12 year old son to have the HPV virus injection, to be given to him at school next week. 
Right or wrong decision?

https://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/features/should-your-child-get-hpv-vaccine

[KhunDon]

18 minutes ago, Rompho Ray said:

https://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/features/should-your-child-get-hpv-vaccine

Thanks Rampo, I’d read similar on a NHS website. 
As a parent, I’m torn between the negative and positive issues surrounding all vaccines to be given to my child, but I have to consider what could happen if I didn’t consent, versus any possible side effects of the vaccine if he has the injection. 

A very difficult choice either way. 🥺