School, no dad committees: “warning to Emilia Romagna, unvaccinated students discriminated against”

Formal distrust of the Committees belonging to the National School Network in Presence of the Emilia Romagna Region “in the person of its President to order the immediate public retraction of any alarmist and illegitimate declaration that discriminates vaccinated from unvaccinated students, providing only for the first teaching in the presence and elimination of the quarantine “. The network disputes what was declared by the Regional Health Councilor, Raffaele Donini, who on the use of the vaccination obligation “seems to open the way to discriminatory measures of quarantine and of Dad for unvaccinated students”. The committees therefore ask “the Government to intervene to put an end to this ‘illogic’ and ‘confusion’ in the health sector that has seen students from Emilia-Romagna among the most penalized in Italy with just 72 days of school in attendance since 24.02.2020 (for high schools) “. On 29 June 2021 the Councilor for Health of Emilia-Romagna (ER), Raffaele Donini, according to what is read in the press release, publicly declared and published on the region’s website, giving the value of official communication, that only with vaccination of the school-age population from 12 to 19 years “the school will be able to face the restart without resorting to distance learning, because I believe it is right, for the vaccinated population, that it can escape any quarantine and distance learning measures, any epidemiological scenario we should have in the autumn “.” These statements have aroused our bewilderment – comments the Network – because any legislative act, ministerial or regional provision that may arise from them would be highly discriminatory, unreasonable and clearly in contrast with constitutional principles and the law Free access to education, guaranteed by article 34 of the Constitution, ve would be bound to the imposition (formal or induced) of the anti Covid-19 vaccine on students, with the consequence that in order to access the school in the presence the children would in fact be obliged to do so, in clear contrast with art. 32, paragraph 2 of the Constitution which states that ‘no one can be obliged to a specific health treatment, except by law’. Also for this reason, the statements of the councilor Raffaele Donini are therefore serious and worrying, as well as inappropriate given the institutional role he holds “.” It is recalled – he continues – as the EU Regulation 2021/953 (on a framework for the release, the verification and acceptance of interoperable certificates of vaccination, testing and healing in relation to Covid-19 – the EU digital Covid certificate – to facilitate the free movement of people during the Covid-19 pandemic, published in the Official Journal of the European Union L 211 of 15 June 2021) to the 36th Recital – in accordance with the provisions of the Resolution of the Council of Europe n.2361 / 2021 at points 7.3.2 and 7.5.2 – provides that direct discrimination must be prevented o indirect to unvaccinated people, for medical reasons, for groups excluded from those for whom the vaccine is recommended, such as children, because they could not do it or who choose not to be vaccinated born. Finally, it is clearly written that “this regulation cannot be interpreted as establishing a right or an obligation to be vaccinated”. “The direct and indirect discriminatory effects deriving from the will expressed or induced to vaccinate students would therefore be manifold: Yes would first of all create a direct de facto discrimination between children and the rest of the adult population – for which there is rightly no obligation to be vaccinated – and this both in the absence of any valid scientific motivation in this sense, or of a provision legislative; There would then be discrimination between vaccinated and unvaccinated children on the right to attend school face-to-face, which is a fundamental right for everyone. This is in clear contrast with the regulatory references just outlined. In addition to the damage to the psycho-physical health of students, relationship and learning damage for those who do not decide or cannot vaccinate due to subjective frailties, this form of obligation induced as a questionable collective protective mechanism – the vaccine protects against the effects of the virus, not from contagion – it would increase the risk of an increase in school evasion and also in juvenile crime “. The Committees adhering to the National School Network in Presence of the Emilia Romagna Region, also recall that” Italy would be the only EU country that imposes the ‘compulsory vaccination for students, effectively causing institutionalized discrimination “with respect to all other EU students”. And finally, they highlight that “in Emilia Romagna the age group 70-79 was immunized with a second dose of 58.03%: it is immoral to go and inoculate the age group 12-19 (and even subordinate access to school!) where the region has not been able to guarantee sufficient doses for an age group much more at risk such as the age group 70-79, or has not been able to “convince” it in terms of communication “. “It is necessary here to specify that the Committees belonging to the National School in Presence Network cannot be accused of disregarding the importance of vaccines for the protection of public health – they specify – but are firm in challenging the legitimacy of wanting to impose a vaccination obligation – also in fact – to minors and students to see their constitutional right to go to school in attendance recognized. The ISS data show how young people very rarely contract the virus or get sick (deaths in the age group 0-19 years from March 2020 to April 28 2021 were 24 out of 130,000, almost all with comorbidities). Again from a legal point of view, it would be the first time in history – and therefore a real ethical-social-health , minors and children (as a condition for being able to attend school in the presence) to undergo vaccination not to protect themselves, but to protect adults. it should be noted that the Lazio TAR (Section I, ordinance n.1947 / 2021) and the Council of State (Section Third, decree nn1777 / 2021) have already censured the measures of prolonged use of distance learning following the closure of schools , precisely because of the lack of precisely because of the lack of “solid and incontrovertible scientific evidence” to support these measures in the face of a “serious compression of the right to education”. Clearly, in addition to the right to education, the best interests of the child and adolescent must also be adequately considered and balanced (articles 3 of the Uncdc and article 24 of the EU Charter of Rights) and the right to health of the same (article 32, par. 1 of the Constitution). “In this regard, it should be noted that in the United Kingdom, the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health recommends vaccination only for children at high risk of exposure and / or severe outcomes. 2. In France, the National Bioethics Council states that the direct individual benefit of vaccination for children and adolescents is very limited in terms of risks associated with infection 3. In Germany, the Standing Vaccination Commission has decided not to recommend vaccination between 12 and 16 years of age because Pfizer manufacturer’s approval study data is insufficient as the number of vaccinated children is simply too small to make a reliable safety statement i n this age group 4 “.” Also in Italy – concludes the press release – an authoritative team of epidemiologists, biostatists, pediatricians, psychologists and biologists have reached the same conclusions, according to which the adoption of a principle of caution in vaccinating minors for ethical medical reasons (referring to the WHO director’s appeal against the selfishness of rich countries that vaccinate groups with almost zero risks, in the face of poor countries where millions of elderly and frail are waiting to be vaccinated ) and precautionary (as stated by Pfizer / Biontech itself, it was not possible to evaluate rare side effects, given the small number of children participating in the experimental study) “.