Why are we boosting kids?

Because so many adults are refusing to get their first vaccination so the road to herd immunity seems to be through kids. (At least some of them have parents that aren't anti-vax.)

If you've been a parent and had kids in day care or elementary school you've probably lived the way that a respiratory infections explode in classrooms and they bring them home. There was that day I was eating some food my son hadn't finished (which seemed perfectly natural) and there were also some plates with leftover food from horse riders and when I thought of it I was filled with disgust at the thought of these snotty little girls.

The anti-vax movement is really driving the rest of us crazy. If they just gave up on resisting they'd find a whole lot less to resist.

[flagged]

But these "vaccines" don't actually provide immunity, unlike previous vaccines, which is why the dictionary entry for vaccine was actually changed. They reduce the severity of symptoms. The best way out of this is herd immunity via the Omicron variant, which causes minor cold symptoms and doesn't kill people (especially not kids).

Anyone who has had kids in school or daycare for the past 2 years and doesn't think their immune system has been repeatedly exposed and assaulted by SARS-CoV-2 is completely out of their mind. My 2 year old spends a good half the year hacking coughing and snotting, it's laughable to think she hasn't already contracted (and her immune system built anti-bodies to), perhaps multiple times, one of the most common viral illnesses of the past two years. If you didn't want your child to acquire some natural immunity, the time for covid vaccination was almost 3 years ago (before the vaccine existed).

As someone who occasionally reads Bari Weiss, I'm a little confused with your comment.

Was your intent here just a straight up ad hominem/name-calling approach, while not addressing any substance of anything? She's 'weak, pathetic, controlled opposition' and a 'greedy journalist' and 'suddenly adopted all the talking points of the right'?

Can you substantiate any of those claims? Is every journalist a 'greedy' journalist? Is she greedy because she's doing well for herself outside of a large traditional for-profit american media company? Or is she greedy or disingenuous because all of her views don't perfectly align with the prevailing opinion of those large traditional for-profit american media companies and their subscriber base? (or is she greedy because of her intersectional identity as a jewish lesbian?)

Why is what she writes pointless? What writing does have a point? Does anything have a point? What are you even talking about?

This ad hominem argument is so typical of American online discourse today. Everything gets the ad hominem attack if it falls outside of the prevailing opinion of the tribe in that particular moment. Labeling someone as 'the right' when they are not in fact on 'the right' is one of the stupid tactics of the day to try to keep people flowing with the prevailing opinions on random topics.

There are many american liberals who are not 'the right' who are not on board with the illiberal direction that many institutions & people flying under the 'Progressive' banner have been advocating for. There is a growing population of these disenchanted liberals (who also have a strong distaste for 'the right'), and that is where I see Bari coming from. This population isn't motivated by 'greed', but will be attracted to liberal voices who are willing to speak against these illiberal trends.