In order to drive a car, an 18-year old must pass a practical and theory test. The car they drive must have had an MOT test and remain (between MOTs) safe to drive. When driving they must have low or zero alcohol in their blood, must belt up, and must drive safely and within the multitude of regulations summarised in the Highway Code.1nvest wrote:Near-as enforcing. Driving a car places others at risk, perhaps cars should be banned in order to better protect the small number that otherwise get seriously injured or killed. Having vaccinated the most vulnerable they're better protected. There's suggestion that the vaccine is more harmful than protective for children. Others will be somewhere midway between the two and it should be each individuals personal choice of which risk they prefer.
All this is legally mandated. If they transgress ANY of these ‘restrictions’ they can be fined, lose their licence, or pay an involuntary visit to the slammer.
And yes: “a small number … [still] get seriously injured or killed”.
Between 1853 and 1971, was mandatory for children to have a smallpox vaccination. If not the parent/s were fined.
In 1917, my mother as a young girl caught diphtheria, and her memories of choking day after day on mouthfuls of shed membrane never faded. The three-dose ‘six in one’ vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, polio whooping cough, hepatitis B and Hib is hugely effective, and had this been around, my mother would have been spared weeks in a Chester sanatorium. And anyone of a certain age will remember stories (and photos) of those who ended up in living in an iron lung’ after contacting polio.
So sorry 1vest: remember that children do not decide for themselves whether or not to be vaccinated. Apart for the very small number of children who already have medical conditions such as anaphylaxis, if parents decide Nay, they are bonkers.
And that is just the selfish parochial view and discounts the additional unfairness of possibly spreading disease to others.
Yes - bonkers.