NYC Judge Blocks Unvaccinated Father From Seeing Daughter: ‘Not In The Child’s Best Interests’

[JonC]

I also disagree that the child ha no rights. The child has the right to life.

If we can say the child has no rights, that one parent can willingly endanger the child against the will of the other parent, then how can we say things like abortion is wrong?

No...the child cannot make the decisions but the child has rights.

 

[canadyjd]

Natural immunity fades more quickly than vaccine immunity
Natural immunity can decay within about 90 days. Immunity from COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to last longer. Both Pfizer and Moderna reported strong vaccine protection for at least six months. COVID-19 natural immunity versus vaccination.

Results showed that the unvaccinated group was twice as likely to contract the infection again, compared with those who had received one dose of the vaccine.

Protection against Delta: Comparing vaccines and natural immunity


We have evidence showing that if you've been naturally infected with COVID-19 and you aren't vaccinated, your risk of getting reinfected with symptomatic disease is about 2.5–fold higher.

Vaccines beat natural immunity in fight against COVID-19

Scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have proven that COVID vaccines will create a better immune response to the Delta variant than the natural immune response people would have if they previously had the virus.

COVID-19: Myth: Natural Immunity Protects Against the Delta Variant - Health Beat

While antibodies from a COVID-19 infection may offer some degree of protection against another future infection (known as "natural immunity"), those who have already had the virus may still be vulnerable—perhaps especially to the Delta variant, the current predominant strain, which is nearly twice as contagious as previous variants. In fact, a study published by the CDC on August 6 compared reinfection rates of people who had previously had COVID-19 and found that unvaccinated individuals were more than twice as likely to be reinfected than fully vaccinated individuals.

Why Vaccines Are Still Important to Fight Delta, Even if You've Already Had Covid-19

Dr. Sabrina Assoumou, an infectious diseases physician at Boston Medical Center, cautioned against relying on natural immunity as protection against COVID. "There are still questions about the protection of natural immunity against variants," she told Newsweek. "A recent study showed that the likelihood of re-infection was higher among unvaccinated persons when compared to vaccinated individuals."

What to know about how well natural COVID immunity works against the Delta variant

Again, more misinformation. The studies are presented as representing the entire population, but in reality, are only addressing a very small population of reinfection and usually that includes people with pre existing conditions.

With natural immunity, the body learns how to fight the virus. Even when the antibody count decreases, as it always does after the infection, the protection is there. The body will quickly respond to any exposure.

Concerning the delta variant, again, the studies are not reflective of the entire populations of those recovered vs those vaccinated, but rather the comparison is of the very small population of both groups that are reinfected.

The way the studies are presented gives a false impression of the risk of reinfection of those recovered from the virus.

That is deliberate misinformation. You should know better.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Again, more misinformation. The studies are presented as representing the entire population, but in reality, are only addressing a very small population of reinfection and usually that includes people with pre existing conditions.

With natural immunity, the body learns how to fight the virus. Even when the antibody count decreases, as it always does after the infection, the protection is there. The body will quickly respond to any exposure.

Concerning the delta variant, again, the studies are not reflective of the entire populations of those recovered vs those vaccinated, but rather the comparison is of the very small population of both groups that are reinfected.

The way the studies are presented gives a false impression of the risk of reinfection of those recovered from the virus.

That is deliberate misinformation. You should know better.

peace to you

Misinformation - there are no vaccine studies that utilize an entire population.

This is deliberate misrepresentation of scientific ctudies. You should know better.

The fact is natural immunity does provide limited protection, but the protection is not as effective as the vaccine. Covid has been proven to decrease t-cells (it had been assumed they would increase) while the vaccine increases the count.

Natural immunity has also been proven much less effective in regards to varients (the vacvine is effective due to the defence against a protein while vovid survivers are not adequatly protected against varients other than the one they to which they were exposed).

 

[Reformed1689]

Right decision. The mother has primary health responsibility for the child. I understand the father believes misinformation, and it is regrettable that he lost visitation rights. But the health of the child needs to come first.

Right decision? You are out of your mind if you think that is the right decision. It is the absolute WRONG decision and does not pay attention to science. Kids are at LOW risk for Covid. And at the end of the day it is still the child's father. Unless there was cause to remove his parental rights this is a horrible injustice.

 

[Revmitchell]

The judge was evil in this case and the Father had equal consideration regardless of who the daughter lives with.

 

[JonC]

The judge was evil in this case and the Father had equal consideration regardless of who the daughter lives with.

No. The father was evil by putting g what he views as a right over his child's safety.

The difference is suicide vs abortion. You can argue a man has a right to his own health decisions (and I agree) but you are wrong to suggest a man has the right to endanger a child over which he has no custody.

There are too many children dying of covid to simply dismiss the wishes of the mother in protecting her child.

 

[Salty]

My advice to women seeking divorce or child support is to get an attorney and take those dead beat dads for every dime they can get.

Evangelicals need to drop the anti-woman support for dead beat dads and abusive husbands.

peace to you

since I dont want to hijack the OP -
I answered the above question here:

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/deadbeat-dads.122292/

 

[Reformed1689]

No. The father was evil by putting g what he views as a right over his child's safety.

Now who is ignoring science?

 

[Reformed1689]

There are too many children dying of covid to simply dismiss the wishes of the mother in protecting her child.

Oh brother give me a break.

From USA Today on October 8th:

Of the 73 million children in the U.S., fewer than 700 have died of COVID-19 during the course of the pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rauch puts the figure into context using the number of people who can typically fit into a sports venue.

That's not too many children dying of covid to simply dismiss the mother who is uneducated on the matter and not following the science, but rather the liberal Democrat narrative.

This is ridiculous.

 

[Revmitchell]

The judge and the mother are evil in their actions. Period

 

[Reformed1689]

The judge and the mother are evil in their actions. Period

All this is is that the mother is mad at the Father and found a way to get what she wanted and exploited it.

 

[JonC]

The judge and the mother are evil in their actions. Period

You are calling good evil and evil good.

Covid cases among children have risen (sharpley). Hospitalizations among children have claimed due to vovid. Deaths among children have been on the rise due to covid.

And we know (the science shows) that the unvacvinated are a primary cause.

The judge was right - regardless of the data - in protecting the parents right to protect the child under her custody.

The mother's decision was up to her. Having survived covid the father was at a decreased risk of getting it again....but he still posed a significantly higher risk of death to her child.

In the US we have had almost 700 children die of covid and the numbers are rising. 700 children may not sound like a large number to those who rely on statics - but to the rest of us these are 700 children.

One preventable death is too many.

 

[Salty]

The question is"
Why did mom use that reason/excuse

Because she was genuinely concern
or
because she wanted to be vindictive.

So - does that child always wear a mask
does mom always wear a mask

Does mom do everything possible to stay 2 meters away from others.

Does mom............................................

 

[JonC]

The question is"
Why did mom use that reason/excuse

Because she was genuinely concern
or
because she wanted to be vindictive.

So - does that child always wear a mask
does mom always wear a mask

Does mom do everything possible to stay 2 meters away from others.

Does mom............................................

I also question the mothers reason. But we have to shy away from assumptions because we really don't know.

The facts are the father could have taken measures to better protect his child but refused. The mother expressed a desire not to subject her child to a greater risk (regardless of how low the risk is, it is more than necessary).

The father rejects the science behind vaccines. He may rightly say he is a lower risk to his daughter having had covid BUT he is a higher risk having not been vaccinated.

 

[Revmitchell]

All this is is that the mother is mad at the Father and found a way to get what she wanted and exploited it.

yep when there is a divorce one parent has custody but that doesn’t in anyway diminish the role of the father as far as rights are concerned nor is it a commentary on his status as a father. It’s not a legitimate reason to assume the worst about him. Only those with an agenda would go so without knowing anything further

 

[Reformed1689]

And we know (the science shows) that the unvacvinated are a primary cause.

Pretty sure the evolving variants are the cause.

 

[Reformed1689]

significantly higher risk of death to her child.

She should be diagnosed with Coviphobia.

 

[Reformed1689]

The facts are the father could have taken measures to better protect his child but refused. The mother expressed a desire not to subject her child to a greater risk (regardless of how low the risk is, it is more than necessary).

Jon this is just stupid. Just stupid.

 

[Reformed1689]

The father rejects the science behind vaccines. He may rightly say he is a lower risk to his daughter having had covid BUT he is a higher risk having not been vaccinated.

Is that what he said? No.

 

[JonC]

yep when there is a divorce one parent has custody but that doesn’t in anyway diminish the role of the father as far as rights are concerned nor is it a commentary on his status as a father. It’s not a legitimate reason to assume the worst about him. Only those with an agenda would go so without knowing anything further

This is misinformation.

Not all states grant dual custody (with a primary). The father, according to the report, had visitation rights. Visitation rights is not joint custody. This means there is no indication the father had any say in education and medical issues.

Shame on the father for caring so little about the life his own child.