I think it is an interesting position for them to take, if in fact they have "banned" the shots rather than just made them unavailable through government channels. The damned "vaccine" has not done much to prevent spread, and any claims about its diminishing symptoms sound purely anecdotal.
That's interesting. I thought it was only the under 18 year olds that were no longer being offered the covid vaccines. This is a recent update I guess?
"Banned" does not have to refer to breach of criminal law. In this case the vaccines are not allowed to people under 50 in general. That means they are banned from receiving them. I rest my case.
"Why ARE people aged under 50 NOT TO BE re-vaccinated?
The purpose of the vaccination programme is to prevent severe illness, hospitalisation and death. Therefore, people at the highest risk of becoming severely ill will be offered booster vaccination. The purpose of vaccination is not to prevent infection with covid-19, and people aged under 50 are therefore currently not being offered booster vaccination.
People aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19. In addition, younger people aged under 50 are well protected against becoming severely ill from covid-19, as a very large number of them have already been vaccinated and have previously been infected with covid-19, and there is consequently good immunity among this part of the population.
It is important that the population also remembers the guidance on how to prevent the spread of infection, including staying at home in case of illness, frequent aeration or ventilation, social distancing, good coughing etiquette, hand hygiene and cleaning."
So not only is it not recommended, it is clearly said " under fifty YOU ARE NOT TO BE RE-VACCINATED" = YOU MUST NOT BE R-V= IT IS FORBIDDEN TO BE R-V
Of course the semantic is really hard to follow with all governments, and if they say now that it is UNSAFE to get vaccinated, they will be attacked by all parts for having been "forced" earlier to do it...
Don't you think Thorsteinn that it is one of the reasons for not using the "real" words?
I think it is an interesting position for them to take, if in fact they have "banned" the shots rather than just made them unavailable through government channels. The damned "vaccine" has not done much to prevent spread, and any claims about its diminishing symptoms sound purely anecdotal.
That's interesting. I thought it was only the under 18 year olds that were no longer being offered the covid vaccines. This is a recent update I guess?
Yes, I think this came a bit later.
the danish government did NOT ban the shots.
it merely decided to not longer provide it.
and that is quite something else....
They do not let people under 50 have them except if they are at special risk. That means they cannot get them. The source is here: https://www.sst.dk/en/English/Corona-eng/Vaccination-against-COVID-19?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
no that does not mean they cannot get them.
it only means that they will not be offered to them by the governmental institutions.
there are ways to get the shots without the government having a say in it.
besides the word "ban "does not even appear in the official publications, all they say is: "will not be offered"
People can still get heroin, but it is banned.
indeed and they they do, they are breaking criminal law.
isn't that what "banned "means?
what criminal law would the danish break??
"Banned" does not have to refer to breach of criminal law. In this case the vaccines are not allowed to people under 50 in general. That means they are banned from receiving them. I rest my case.
Just to add the exact text that says
"Why ARE people aged under 50 NOT TO BE re-vaccinated?
The purpose of the vaccination programme is to prevent severe illness, hospitalisation and death. Therefore, people at the highest risk of becoming severely ill will be offered booster vaccination. The purpose of vaccination is not to prevent infection with covid-19, and people aged under 50 are therefore currently not being offered booster vaccination.
People aged under 50 are generally not at particularly higher risk of becoming severely ill from covid-19. In addition, younger people aged under 50 are well protected against becoming severely ill from covid-19, as a very large number of them have already been vaccinated and have previously been infected with covid-19, and there is consequently good immunity among this part of the population.
It is important that the population also remembers the guidance on how to prevent the spread of infection, including staying at home in case of illness, frequent aeration or ventilation, social distancing, good coughing etiquette, hand hygiene and cleaning."
So not only is it not recommended, it is clearly said " under fifty YOU ARE NOT TO BE RE-VACCINATED" = YOU MUST NOT BE R-V= IT IS FORBIDDEN TO BE R-V
Of course the semantic is really hard to follow with all governments, and if they say now that it is UNSAFE to get vaccinated, they will be attacked by all parts for having been "forced" earlier to do it...
Don't you think Thorsteinn that it is one of the reasons for not using the "real" words?