The UK government has authorised a campaign of “jabs” (the populist touch word for a vaccination) for young people aged 12-15. The programme will be ‘delivered’ in schools. Apparently young people can overrule their parent’s wishes and have a vaccination even if their parents are against it. (Same principal as a cult which empowers children over their parents).
One non-peer reviewed US study claims that giving Pfizer to this age group – which is the proposed UK vaccine – will lead, as far as boys are concerned to more hospitalisations than if they don’t.  Astra-Zeneca is also more dangerous to young people than the minimal risks for young people from Sars-Cov-2. 
Why is the UK government going down this route? One answer offered by England’s Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty is that it is to ‘protect the mental health of children’.  Apparently the argument is that it will reduce infections which in turn – because of rules about students having to isolate – will reduce disruption to education. Currently contacts of students testing positive do not need to isolate so in fact the disruption would be minimal anyway. The argument appears to be that it is worth risking a teenage boy’s life to prevent him missing out on two weeks compulsory mass schooling.
There are two possible explanations for this criminality. 1) It is a sheer lie – they are looking for an excuse and these days ‘protecting mental health’ is a good catch-all excuse for extending any kind of surveillance and discipline system. 2) They really believe it. In which case it shows the extent of the delusional reification in these people’s minds. They really believe that compulsory mass schooling is something essential to life and that missing out on it is a real harm. This is the delusion propagated by those who are addicted to mass schooling. Of course most of humanity for most of history and even today a large part of humanity get through life quite happily without the benefits of mass compulsory schooling provided by the state.
In either case the need to market surplus vaccines at taxpayer expense is too good an opportunity to pass by one imagines. Also – one suspects that the real ‘medical’ reason is to protect unvaccinated adults from being infected by children. And perhaps to prevent a pool of transmission between young people in which vaccine-defeating variants could emerge. But this means a bridge has been crossed; children are to be ‘offered’ (by teachers, and overriding family rights) a potentially dangerous medical intervention in order to protect not them – but the adults around them. Rather than have the debate about whether this is ethically acceptable the approach has been to invent reasons why it is in children’s interests to be vaccinated. Damage to their mental health is one example. “Long-Covid in children” is another. People who are experienced in watching the mass media will have noticed how once the adult population had been vaccinated and they were ready to move on to children a series of ‘long-Covid in children’ scare stories were placed in the media. The aim was to soften people up for accepting child vaccination. (An analogy would be media scare stories about WMD which were used to soften people up for the murderous and illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Another analogy would be the stories about women’s rights in Afghanistan which were used to justify the invasion of that country and are now being used to undermine the new rulers). This is how the media is used to manage popular opinion in our ‘democracy’. Far from facilitating reasoned and scientifically informed debate the media acts to manipulate public opinion. Rather than have a real debate about the ethics of vaccinating children to protect adults the solution has been to generate a (scientifically dubious if not fraudulent) narrative that this is about protecting children.
A small footnote; why does the liberal media allow state bureaucrats and ministers to endlessly repeat the not true statement “the vaccine is safe”. The various vaccines (not ‘the vaccine’) have different risk profiles and benefits. The risks are statistically speaking quite low but not negligible. Surely it is precisely this obvious lying which gives rise to the foolishness of ‘anti-vaxxers’. These people often have a very rudimentary grasp of the science – but they can tell when they are being given a straight lie. It is these lies, “the vaccine is safe”, which give rise to the folk response of the anti-vaxxers. Why don’t the authorities just tell the scientific truth: the vaccines in use in the UK have good efficacy (especially Pfizer) but (in varying degrees and for different groups) do carry a very small risk of serious side-effects? I think that people can process this. Why do the authorities compulsively lie on this point? I think the answer is probably that to achieve the greatest possible mass take-up of the vaccine the most effective approach is to tell this lie, to rely on the fact that most people will do what the authorities tell them to do without reasoning about it independently – especially if you can scare them about something. The folk kick-back from the anti-vaxxers is an acceptable price to pay. Again though – this is not a democracy of independent thinkers but a kind of unscientific quasi-fascist mass state controlled though the media.
Maybe ‘democracy’ and mass society don’t go together? Democracy, in the sense of individuals thinking matters through and then agreeing with others after debate (by consensus or by voting) on the best course of action is simply not something for the masses? A key question; is this because a) the mass of people can’t do this; society is always composed of a few strong trees – but most people are little saplings whose instinct is just to find the nearest strong tree to gather around, and don’t in fact want to think about anything or b) mass democracy is possible but has been subverted by the rich and powerful? An absolutely key question. All I can say at this point is that it is observable that in the ‘liberal democracies’ of the West there is a gap between the self-description of the society (“we are based on reason, science and democracy”) and the reality (quasi-fascism, non-science and mass-manipulation).