[continued from previous message]

>> One former member recalled how, after a positive start, the group’s role
>> “fell off a cliff”, saying: “It became clear that the government
didn’t
>> want to listen to advice. It was frustrating, deeply frustrating.
>> “We tried hard to say ‘we have been mandated to do this work, and yet we
>> are not being allowed to do it. We are coming across obstacles, left
>> right and centre’. It just felt that we had been sidelined and, even
>> though we were built into the structure, we were circumvented.”
>> During autumn 2020, MEAG discussed the adult Covid vaccine programme and
>> stated that “honest and clear information” should be provided to allow
>> the public to “make an informed choice” about the jabs. It also said the
>> government should be “realistic about alternatives” to the vaccine.
>> Two weeks later, it was told its terms of reference were being
>> “refreshed” to make clear that it should be a “constructive sounding
>> board” for ministers. Rather than its earlier proactive approach, it
>> should now focus on being “responsive”.
>> Sir Chris meets Boris Johnson and his Covid top team at No 10 Downing
>> Street during the pandemic
>> Sir Chris meets Boris Johnson and his Covid top team at No 10 Downing
>> Street during the pandemic
>> In December 2020, MEAG members expressed grave misgivings about a
>> proposed rollout of vaccine passports – a policy that would result in
>> people being barred from pubs, cafes and restaurants if they failed to
>> prove their vaccine status.
>> There were “serious concerns” about human rights implications, with
>> members questioning the motivation for introducing the passports. They
>> raised concerns that the passports could be used by the Government and
>> possibly employers to “semi-coerce people into having the vaccine”.
>> Minutes from the next meeting, in January 2021, showed that Sir Chris
>> advised the group to stop putting its recommendations in writing.
>> While England’s chief medical officer “valued the presence of the MEAG
>> and the ability to understand complexities” he “counselled against
>> producing documentation that offered recommendations, given the
>> political aspect of decision-making”.
>> Prof Sir Jonathan Montgomery, the co-chairman of MEAG, submitted two
>> witness statements to the Covid inquiry, both of which also referred to
>> Sir Chris advising the group against putting its recommendations in writing.
>> He recalled a meeting at which Sir Chris told him that “producing
>> documentation that offered recommendations might not be helpful, given
>> the political as well as ethical aspects of decision-making”.
>> Sources close to Sir Chris said this was a misunderstanding and that he
>> meant to explain that MEAG was an advisory group, meaning it was not
>> appropriate for it to put recommendations in writing.
>> 'Serious concerns' were raised about the human rights implications of
>> some Covid policies
>> ‘Serious concerns’ were raised about the human rights implications of
>> some Covid policies Credit: Oli Scarff/AFP via Getty Images
>> Some former MEAG members defended Sir Chris’s role, saying he was a
>> civil servant acting on the orders of ministers.
>> “He was acting as a conduit for those in government,” said one. “He
was
>> supportive of the work we were doing and could understand why it was
>> important to have these discussions – but not the ministers.
>> “He is not a political person, he is a civil servant. ‘Political’ is
>> really a shorthand for saying ‘the government think you are a thorn in
>> their side’.”
>> Either way, this appeared to be something of a turning point for MEAG,
>> after which the number of its meetings dwindled. There were no meetings
>> recorded between April and September 2021, despite the fact that the
>> children’s vaccine rollout was being debated and was regarded as one of
>> the most ethically contentious decisions of the pandemic.
>> The Telegraph has learnt that a meeting had been scheduled to take place
>> on June16 2021 to discuss the matter. But the meeting was cancelled at
>> the last minute by Department of Health officials – who cited
>> “unexpected media coverage” – and was never rescheduled.
>> Before it, a memo, seen by The Telegraph, had been circulated among
>> members, warning of ethical and legal concerns around proceeding with a
>> vaccine rollout for healthy children.
>> The memo warned that “urgent” consideration must be given to the ethical
>> and legal issues relating to rolling out a new vaccine for healthy
>> children. It said vaccines were “invasive, irreversible and may have
>> long-term side effects, as yet undefined”.
>> ragout-top
>> Vaccination of Children and Young People against SARS-COV-2: legal and
>> ethical implications
>> The vaccination of children and young people raises ethical and legal
>> questions not met in adult vaccination. The extraordinary pace of the
>> adult programme means that these issues now require urgent consideration.
>> Vaccination saves lives but is invasive, irreversible and may have
>> long-term side effects, as yet unidentified.
>> The precautionary principle has been applied to date, with an existing
>> recommendation that only children with severe neurodisabilities, where
>> there is clear evidence that potential benefits outweigh potential
>> risks, should be vaccinated below the age of 16 years.
>> Mortality/morbidity in children and young people are very low in
>> comparison to adults. The goals of mortality/morbidity reduction by
>> individual vaccine protection are, consequently, less applicable.
>> An ethical assessment of collective immunisation programmes would
>> highlight safety and efficacy of both vaccine and programme,
>> minimisation of burdens and benefits, a just distribution of burdens and
>> benefits, voluntary valid consent where possible, and protection of
>> public trust.
>> The main questions are:-
>> What are the goals of vaccinating children/ young people?
>> What are the benefits and harms to individual children/ young people?
>> Are there any practical alternatives to vaccinating this age group?
>> Specific Issues
>> Legal issues: Although not technically within the jurisdiction of MEAG
>> or JCVI, these are worth noting as an indication of the degree to which
>> ethical principles have been given institutional recognition. The
>> relevant law in England and Wales is based on the Children Act 1989,
>> which affirms a position adopted in previous statutes and judgements
>> since the late 19th century, namely that the welfare of the child is
>> paramount in all matters concerning children (s1, 1). The law in
>> Scotland and Northern Ireland is similar. The UK has also ratified the
>> UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which specifies the best
>> interests of the child as the primary consideration. This has been
>> incorporated into domestic law by the Welsh Government and the Scottish
>> Government is proposing a similar move. The Children Act (s.1, 5) also
>> establishes the principle of the ‘least restrictive alternative’, that
>> an intervention should only take place if it is clearly better than no
>> intervention.
>> UK family law is very different from that in the US, where vaccines for
>> children are being deployed. US family law is mostly at state rather

[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
 * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)