by Renee McGuinness
Vermont State Senators Campion, Lyons, Hooker, Chittenden, and Perchlik discussed school vaccination with Health Commissioner Levine and Education Secretary French during the February 16, 2022, Senate Committee on Education meeting, found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8LjF6pO2c4.
@ 21:25, after Commissioner Levine states one shot is useless, he says he, “does not want to appear non-compassionate because there may be people who said, ‘my adverse reaction was so severe that I cannot get another dose of this,’ and I have to respect that.”
Given Dr. Levine’s acknowledgement of vaccine adverse events, there is no need for further discussion about increasing vaccination rates and vaccine mandates in schools.
When there is risk, there must be choice. End of discussion.
At 45:30 Secretary French engages in divisive political commentary, claiming because Chittenden County’s population is more progressive, it is more interested in mitigation measures than rural towns in Vermont and residents of densely populated cities in southern New England states; He defines them as “tough nuts to crack relative to vaccination” . . . “people of color distrust government and so forth . . .” Secretary French further incites division, “we have this other Vermont, as well, as you get out in the rural landscape . . . the last mile . . . we have to get down to those small, very small economies of scale to push a needle on vaccination, that’s a good one too, ‘push the needle on vaccination.’” Everyone participating the Zoom discussion smile and chuckle: Campion, Lyons, Hooker, Chittenden, Perchlik, Levine, and French.
Ah, yes, “Push the needle on vaccination” is such a clever catchphrase, isn’t it?
Pushing vaccination on “vaccine-hesitant” people in rural areas, densely populated southern New England towns, and on people of color when there is risk of vaccine injury and death is light-hearted discussion, is it not?
Is it true Progressives are more interested in mitigation measures than other demographic groups? From appearances, Progressive government officials are only interested in applying mitigation measures that are deleterious to health: masks that cause learning delays and social/emotional trauma as well as potential adverse health effects; isolation that causes despair and damages people’s livelihoods; and vaccines that carry risk of significant injury or death.
Where is discussion of mitigation strategies for vulnerable populations while preserving the right for people to live their lives?
@48:54 Campion asks why there is only 66% uptake of a third shot. Levine states the CDC reports there is less likelihood of an adverse systemic reaction from the third shot than from the second shot, so that should be “reassuring” to those who are worried that “oh, I didn’t do so well with the first and the second, I don’t even want to try the third.” For the second time, Commissioner Levine acknowledges adverse reactions that are severe enough that people are not willing to accept more shots.
@51:15 Senator Perchlik asks about “some database” of adverse events his constituents have brought to his attention. He appeals to an authority figure – Commissioner Levine – to receive instruction on how to respond to his constituents rather than educating himself. Levine responds that every report of vaccine injury is “not a reason to warn people never to get the vaccine.” It is, however, the reason people must have a choice whether to accept vaccines free from limits on our right to work, receive an education, and participate in society.
The author is an Addison County resident. A version of this article was sent as an open letter to Vermont lawmakers.