march is done.

https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2014/03/
https://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.com/2014/03/
https://deathtokoalas.blogspot.com/2014/03/
https://jessicamurraytravelblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/

so, february, 2014 is now both consistent & complete. i ended up copying a few files around, and deleting a couple as well

https://dsdfghghfsdflgkfgkja.blogspot.com/2014/02/

https://musicofjessicamurray.blogspot.com/2014/02/

https://deathtokoalas.blogspot.com/2014/02/

https://jessicamurraytravelblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/

i know i've said this before, but that's really it for a long time, now.

if i had kids, i would get them immunized on the existing immunization schedule, which does not include any experimental vaccines, but the way this law is written would be a model for any vaccine legislation in canada, in the sense that you would have the opportunity to opt-out by signing a statement of conscience. that is, it's only mandatory if you refrain from freely choosing to arbitrarily opt-out.

so, if some libertarian group decided this was terrible, all the court is going to tell them at the end of the day is "look, there's a waiver, you don't have to actually do it.". at the end of the day, a truly forced vaccination law would be unconstitutional; instead, we consistently legislate strongly worded suggestions with loopholes inserted by the constitution that are wide enough as to make the law worthless, then claim the supreme court upholds the violation.

what the supreme court upholds is that those who choose not to be vaccinated due to their beliefs cannot be forced to do so. the government can pass whatever law it wants, so long as it upholds that rule. that is the precedent, and it will carry forward.

fwiw, there is a difference between giving your kids a tetanus shot and give them an experimental vaccine for the common cold. i think that older people may want to be a little more risk adverse here, but i wouldn't actually be in much of a hurry to vaccinate the kids - i'd want to wait that out a bit and see how it goes.

public health units are also subject to a level of proportionality in their decisions. that is, they can't just cite a precedent as an excuse and then do whatever they want. so, the question of coercive legislation regarding this virus will ultimately need to be weighed against it's actual threat, which is where i think the disconnect is.

we don't legislate mandatory flu vaccinations for children to attend school, and i don't imagine we'll legislate covid-19, either.

but, if we did, you could always opt-out.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/court-challenge-of-ontario-s-vaccination-law-unlikely-to-succeed-experts-1.4661318