Simplifying the COVID Mandates Argument

AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes

This morning, in California, parents kept their kids home from school as a form of protest against the statewide Gov. Gavin Newsom-ordered COVID mandates for vaccines in schools.  After much coercing from another parent, I went to the protest at the school district offices, to help show my support for those willing to step up against these ridiculous mandates.  When I arrived at about 11 AM, I found a dozen or so parents with signs standing in the parking lot.  Many had children with them, likely as a result of holding them out of school today.  Our school district offices are down a street in an industrial center, which limits the amount of attention a protest like this would draw.


There were parents and students and even teachers holding up signs, speculating whether or not anyone from the district would come out to speak to us.  There wasn’t much chanting or ruckus, aside from the occasional cheer of excitement generated by the tooted horn of approval from a passing car.  Everyone was extremely pleasant, calm, and respectful.

As I read the signs of the different parents and teachers, the messages were so diverse and convoluted that it was difficult to know what this group was standing out there to do.  Some were talking about the vaccines and others were talking about privacy, but it was hard to figure out exactly what anyone wanted.  It felt like chanting wasn’t being done, only because they couldn’t decide on a uniform message which to spread.

In talking to one lady, who happened to be a teacher, she was talking about PCR tests, and mRNA vaccines, spouting what amounted to misinformation to solidify her point.  As other parents began to engage her, I watched as the misinformation began to spread and decided it was best that I step in.  No, the vaccines don’t alter your DNA.  No, the PCR tests do not put anything in your system.

Another parent was railing against the vaccines as “dangerous for children.”  Certainly, there are risks associated with the vaccine (as I will discuss later), but the idea that the vaccines carry a risk any greater than that of COVID-19 themselves is, in itself, misinformation.  Again, the long-term risks associated with Myocarditis, a documented however extremely unlikely side effect of the vaccine, are severe and lasting.  At present, there is no cure for Myocarditis.


I became frustrated at the lack of unity and cohesive message.  It seemed everyone, though against the vaccine mandates, had their different reasons, and wanted everyone else to agree with their reasons in order to justify their participation in that protest.  I just wasn’t having it.

Finally in speaking up, I said, “We can all be here for our different reasons, but we do not have to make things up or spread misinformation to make our point.  The facts and the data are on our side.  By getting off in the weeds about the potential side effects of the vaccines and other speculative or false statements, you lose a lot of people.  Keep it simple.  ABC, 123.  Three points.  Does the vaccine carry risks, no matter how unlikely they are?  Yes? Does the jurisdiction that is requiring those vaccines carry any liability or mitigate or insure against those risks?  No?  Then no, I will not comply.”

It is that simple.  Make them defend this.  Make them have to explain that they are requiring you to get something that has the potential to harm you and are simultaneously not accepting any liability for those potential problems.  While we are so concerned about a disease that has killed fewer children in the last year than died of the flu during the 2018-2019 flu season, we are ignoring the potential long-term consequences the mitigation efforts might have on our children AND deciding they are not liable for the negative effects of those efforts.  It would be no more different than me driving my car outside of the bounds of the law with a sign on the front that says I’m not liable for accidents.


If you’re going to require me to take a shot, you’re also going to make the manufacturer of that shot or the jurisdiction requiring it liable for any damage that occurs.  Otherwise, you’re creating a discrepancy to which there is no legal recourse.

Keep it simple.  Be specific.  Make them explain and defend their position.  You have the right to say no.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos