Bioethics—What is right?

Is Biden’s new mandate to vaccinate businesses of 100 or more employees ethical, or even legal?

Concerning bioethics —is it ethical to mandate vaccination of citizens with an unnatural selection processes that, based on fear, have bypassed established checks and balances? Is it an ethical mandate regardless?

Here in Washington state we have vaccine mandates coupled with the threat of jobs and access. Now President Biden offering more of the same. For whatever reason nature has selected this process, yet humanity is serious enough to think it can hold it at bay ad-nauseum. We need 8 billion more people?

Will vaccines end the pandemic? No. But it will curtail some suffering while simultaneously causing other suffering.

“labs are turning to gene-based vaccines. Scientists use information from the genome of the virus to create a blueprint of select antigens. The blueprint is made of DNA or RNA—molecules that hold genetic instructions. The researchers then inject the DNA or RNA into human cells. The cell’s machinery uses the instructions to make virus antigens that the immune system reacts to. Cells respond to the instructions as a normal part of their daily existence. This is the same trait infectious viruses exploit; they cannot reproduce on their own, so they use a cell’s machinery to make copies of themselves. They burst out of the cell and infect more cells, widening the infection.

Who knows where any of this will go from here? What is nature trying to tell us? One thing is clear; humans will fight the natural processes until it all goes out with a bang instead of boredom. This artificial propping of human longevity may very well be its downfall.

It won’t be some presidential whacko to push the button, but will it likely go out with a syringe?

Is Biden’s new mandate to vaccinate businesses of 100 or more employees ethical, or even legal?

I know maybe it’s too late to say this, but the unnatural living conditions, overcrowding genomics to keep capitalism growing evermore is a root cause. Now what do you do about that?

Author: jim-

One minute info blogs breaking the faith trap.

706 thoughts on “Bioethics—What is right?”

  1. Hear that, Jim? That’s the whistle of the train that Gauleiter Tildeb has summoned to round up the unvaxxed for their trip to his “Impfstoff Macht Gesund” re-education camps.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I don’t think anyone really wants that nor thinks they are capable of doing that…as they are doing that. The milgram shock experiment comes to mind.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Ha! That is so funny! Police state, North Battleford, Saskatchewan!

          The Covid Enforcement Team is trying to respond to the idiocy of those who are intentionally breaking public health protocols… specifically about the size of gatherings. The ‘police state’ method? Batons? Water cannons? Shooting people? Rounding up and sending by cattle cars to concentration camps? Nope. Worse than all of those: the brutality of handing out tickets!

          End of days!

          Like

          1. How many tickets are they allowed to give one person? One per day, block by block, or who gets them, elected officials, or just those nasty lifesaving nurses who’ve refused them?

            Like

            1. Good question. I’m sure there are reasonable rules about those issues – giving people time to put corrections into place I presume. Their role is as bylaw officers and not armed black-shirt commandos with night vision goggles and laser guided weaponry! That’s why I’m laughing; this team will probably get reimbursed for gas – if they’re lucky – maybe in 2023.

              Another role they have is to help ensure a measure of protection and security when health officials gather to share information and discuss protocols. I mean, seriously, Battleford is not a big place and so the gathering of a dozen protestors can be considered a ‘mob’ in Saskatchewan lingo! But to think of forming this team as a ‘harbinger’ of authoritarian rule headed towards the States is really quite funny; almost as funny as, say, Reefer Madness coming down from Priest River, Idaho and scaring the good folk of Los Angeles. That’s quite the harbinger!

              Liked by 1 person

          2. Funny indeed! I imagine the native tribes were laughing themselves silly, too, as they were being carted off into those remote northern reserves and residential schools. Likewise for those 22,000+ Japanese Canadians who were relocated during WWII.

            But hey, it’s totes different now, because the Saskatchewan premier doesn’t have a bushy mustache or talk in a funny accent, and the “enforcement” officers aren’t wearing Hugo Boss uniforms — at least not yet. Oh, and that toll free snitch line we’ve set up to secretly report on those subversive COVID scofflaws — it’s for the common good.

            Like

            1. It’s amazing how much things have changed over time. A few decades ago, I traveled most of the west coast from San Diego to Vancouver Canada, and felt it had a very distinct, fun, relaxed, freedom-loving vibe to it — like being in paradise — and I was extremely tempted to move out there. But as Don Henley noted: “you call some place paradise, kiss it good bye.” Now I read that more people are moving away from California than moving towards it.

              That said, the snitch lines are popping up in many places, and for better or worse, the authoritarians have now removed their masks to reveal their true identities. We live in interesting times.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. Here it is essentially east vs west. The west is very liberal and the east is uber conservative and has attempted a few times to create its own state, which would be combined with north Idaho idealistically. It makes an interesting show, yet an irritating one. If they could only believe the right dogmas…

              Like

            3. How liberal can it really be if the people out west have become militant about the wearing of masks?

              The true test of someone’s commitment to the constitutional ideals — like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of movement, freedom to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. — is whether they maintain that commitment without waiver, even during times of crisis and turmoil, because a right that can be withdrawn is not really a right — it’s a privilege.

              Like

  2. For anyone who might care about what risk in the age of Covid means:

    There is an excellent article here explaining the real risk of Covid to different people that reveals the tremendous age skew at work and why the vaccination goal really is a PUBLIC health issue goal and not a personal freedom issue at all.

    For example, understanding ‘risk’ by means of statistical probabilities is not easy to disperse to the wider public because the disease is not the same to everyone; it is well known to skew higher risk towards those who are older. So how do we come to better understand our own risk?

    Well, statistically speaking, it takes about 800 vaccinations in the 60+ population to keep one 60+ person out of hospital. It takes about 25,000 vaccinations in children under the age of 12 to keep that same 60+ person out of the hospital. But what we as interested members of the public do to calculate what our own risk might be is we use information that has been collated based on averages – information gathered across all age cohorts that constitute thee ‘public’ – but this presents a misleading baseline when we (understandably) look at our personal risk using these stats and then decide whether or not we feel we should or should not get vaccinated.

    The result?

    When we use average risk, we think we are safer than we are OR more at risk than we are based on these averages. This leads to a great deal of confusion about accurately determining the real levels of risk we – and those we care for – face. More importantly, it leads to a great deal of confusion about why we should or should not get vaccinated!

    But the truth is that the virus causes logarithmic risk based on 5 year age segments. A person 5 years older than you faces TWICE as much risk as you do! So your decision about getting vaccinated is far, FAR less important to you that it might be to them!

    At one end of the age spectrum, this doubling has little effect… a young child goes from extremely unlikely to get complex Covid symptoms to very unlikely. Big deal. But the other end of the population spectrum? Well, let’s just say the older one is, the more prudent to have one’s affairs in order. The risk of getting complex Covid symptoms go hand in hand with age; vaccinations mitigate it, divide it by a percentage less than the doubling effect, it is true. So it’s just that simple. Vaccinations only partly mitigate the rising risk of having complex symptoms that comes with age in the time of Covid.

    So the best defense is wide vaccination aimed to reduce exposure. That’s the major thing: being exposed to the virus. Vaccination in this context is a mitigating measure only, and that mitigation is mostly dealing with developing complex symptoms. And if vaccination programs are wide enough to capture most of a population, then vaccinations can mitigate exposure to the point of being – you guessed it – extremely unlikely. And that’s the the most important goal of any and all vaccination programs. if you’re never exposed, you’re not going to develop these symptoms that are what kills and maims people for life (not the virus).

    So this goal of reducing exposure can only be accomplished by mass vaccination because we also know that the unvaccinated are not evenly distributed across the wider population but very much based on enclaves that, as a social group, are very poorly vaccinated if at all. When members from these enclaves interact with people beyond that enclave, the risk they present is ALSO logarithmic. Think about that. A single infected person offers different levels of risk – from little to great – with every single contact made throughout the public they come into contact with. And this is very poorly understood by most people.

    A single unvaccinated person, in other words, even if pre- or asymptomatic presents a different risk, what’s called a ‘scaled’ risk, to others depending on the ages of these other people even if they are fully vaccinated. Hence, what get a rising number of what we call ‘breakthrough cases’. Although vaccinated individuals lessen their chances of developing complex symptoms if exposed (this is good), their age increases the risk to the point of doubling them for every 5 years old they are when exposed (this is bad).

    That’s why framing vaccinations as a personal issue does not accurately define what’s really at stake nor properly describe why remaining unvaccinated by choice increases the risk such people present to the entire public domain to those who are older even if fully vaccinated!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Public Health Ontario recently released a report stating there was a demonstrable increase in Myocarditis and Pericarditis following “vaccination” with COVID-19 mRNA “vaccines” from December 13, 2020 to August 7, 2021.

    From the highlights:

    – Since the start of the COVID-19 immunization program in Ontario, there have been 314 reports
    of myocarditis or pericarditis following receipt of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in Ontario.

    – Of those, 204 reports of myocarditis/pericarditis met the Brighton Collaboration case definition
    levels of diagnostic certainty 1, 2 or 3 for myocarditis or pericarditis and are subsequently
    included in the remainder of the analysis.5,6
    – Among the 204 reports, 79.9% occurred in males and 69.6% occurred following second
    dose.

    – The reporting rate of myocarditis/pericarditis was higher following the second dose of mRNA
    vaccine than after the first dose, particularly for those receiving the Moderna vaccine as the
    second dose of the series (regardless of the product received for the first dose).

    – The reporting rate for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 6.4 per million doses administered
    following first dose and 8.7 per million doses administered following second dose, for all
    age groups and genders combined.

    – The reporting rate for the Moderna vaccine was 6.6 per million doses administered
    following first dose and 28.2 per million doses administered following second dose, for all
    age groups and genders combined.

    – The highest reporting rate of myocarditis/pericarditis was observed in males aged 18-24 years
    following second dose.

    – The reporting rate in this group following the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine as second dose was
    37.4 per million doses and was 263.2 per million following the Moderna vaccine as second
    dose.

    https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-myocarditis-pericarditis-vaccines-epi.pdf?sc_lang=en

    Liked by 2 people

    1. *sigh*

      From the authors (parentheses and bold are mine):

      “Even if you took the worst-case scenario, it doesn’t happen in 99.9 per cent of cases,” said Montreal cardiologist and epidemiologist Dr. Christopher Labos. “So the vast majority of people, even young people, are going to get vaccinated and not have an issue with myocarditis (the more serious of the two conditions… para, infection of the heart sac; myo, infection of the heart).”

      “A small proportion of people who do experience the side effect (~30-40 potentially per million doses in the 18-24 cohort who are most at risk) will experience mild symptoms that are treatable without hospital care, Labos said, and don’t appear to cause “any major heart damage.”

      And the actual risk conclusion from the authors you (somehow) managed to avoid?

      COVID-19 vaccines are safe and have been proven effective against the disease. We invite anyone who has not yet received the shot to please get vaccinated.”

      Also, when asked about this study, “The real problem here is that I worry that people are going to keep using the wrong version of the study to advance their agenda.” You mean there are people who have an agenda other than providing good information about this very serious pandemic? Whodathunk!

      Now, who might that be, I wonder… hmmm….

      Liked by 3 people

    2. JAMA study here.

      Take away?

      ” No relationship between COVID-19 mRNA vaccination and postvaccination myocarditis can been established given the observational nature of this study.”

      Like

      1. Yet Sweden, Finland and Denmark have announced they have suspended use of the experimental Spikevax drugs for those under 30. Things that make you go . . . hmmm.

        Like

  4. Here’s some more “anti-vax misinformation” being peddled by the alt-right conspiracy theorists working for Public Health England:

    Click to access Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf

    I direct you to examine the data found in Table 5. “Attendance to emergency care and deaths of sequenced and genotyped Delta cases in England by vaccination status (1 February 2021 to 12 September 2021), which can be found on pages 19 – 20 of the report.

    If you compare the total number of cases reported in column two against the number of unvaccinated cases in the last column, you will discover that they represent ~43% of all cases, ~50% of all cases in the <50 age group and ~9% of the cases in the 50+ age group.

    If you compare the total number of deaths, the total unvaccinated represent ~28% of the total, 65% of the <50 age group, and ~30% of the 50+ age group.

    And the doubled-vaccinated, 50+ age group faired the worst in all categories:

    – total cases ~75%
    – total emergency care ~65%
    – total overnight inpatient admissions ~69% and 63% (exclusion and inclusion)
    – total deaths within 28 days ~68%

    So it doesn't look like the vaccines were quite as effective as their proponents claim.

    Like

    1. I’m surprised you’re not requested by every health organization in the world for your infectious disease expertise, Ron. You are by far the smartest one anywhere and can read reports to find exactly what everyone else in the profession misses. Sound very reasonable . You are truly amazing. Now, I’ve got this rash…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, this is what those health experts you keep referring to have reported. If you’re dissatisfied with their findings, then perhaps you’ll have to take it up with them personally.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No, this is what you have interpreted these finding to mean. That’s why you should be a world-renowned infectious disease expert, Ron: because you think the data supports what you believe. This is a thinking error you keep making.

          Like

            1. I’m not parsing a report that used a different vaccine at different stages than the mRNA vaccines used here. It’s not in my wheelhouse and I’ve read, seen, or heard nothing about it. That’s not the way I ‘play’; that’s respecting infectious disease experts to parse this information for all of us and then explain how it impacts people or affects vaccination scheduling. Ron thinks himself so well informed as these experts because, Hey, he has this data that he thinks says what seems to align with his beliefs. Yeah, so?

              As I’ve said earlier, there is no end to this denialist tactic, monicat. The interwebs will ALWAYS offer a steady supply of this. And I’ve also stated quite clearly that I’m not going to play this game, either with vaccination data here or a creationist argument elsewhere that seems to undermine evolutionary theory or climate data that seems contrary to climate science. People are welcome to go town with all the ‘alternate’ facts they want. I’m much more concerned with using what’s true to inform my beliefs about reality rather that using my beliefs to guide me to select which information best bolsters them.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. tildeb, you close your eyes to the fact that there is a significant amount of information that is not publicized. i am not afraid of the vaccine, and will take it if need be. what worries me is how those contrarian but well-credentialed docs and scientists are being treated. if you have nothing to hide, why try to conceal any opposing view? this is scary and very anti-democratic. it’s the method that is so detestable.

              but be careful, you feeling you are “using the ‘truth’ while those disagreeing are using ‘beliefs’ puts you in a huge blindspot. a lil flexibility of mind never hurts.

              now, let’s not fight. after all we’ve been through!😁.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. I laughed out loud at being told there is a fair amount of ‘information’ that is not publicized! You have no idea at the avalanche of ‘information’ pouring into public health! You have no idea how many people are involved figuring out what is ‘information’ and what is batshit crazy and then parsing it into useful data. I suspect you also have no clue what constitutes ‘useful’ data.

              If you wrote a scientific paper for publication and submitted it, only then do you begin to realize the rigor of the process. This is why many studies avoid this process by going straight to a gullible press who can slap a click-bait heading on something and publish instantaneously. This is why the online world is full of all kinds of stuff that may or may not be good information, the kind that can be used to better understand something like a virus and how it operates and by what mechanisms. That’s why we have actual experts who DO know exactly this, who have spent a tremendous amounts of time and effort and undergone highly specific training to be able to understand these differences and recommend appropriately. It is EXACTLY this expertise that can cut away 99% of the shit pouring into social media and get to the heart of the increasing knowledge we are earning. And then they know how to apply this knowledge in ways that offer the best chance for EVERYONE to benefit.

              To suggest that it is the lack of publicizing good information that is a problem is downright hilarious; the more an expert publishes, the higher the chances someone like Ron will either find some cherry-picked data that SEEMS to be contrary to medical consensus or claim the expert isn’t publishing the right data that just so happens to agree with him!

              Believe me when I say there are literally hundreds if not thousands of infectious disease experts parsing this avalanche and trying to the very best of their professional abilities to separate the wheat from the chaff, to get the best possible vetted information (this the rigorous process I mentioned) to those who formulate public health policy. This is why I say I know the vaccination policies are based on the very best information at hand, that this is process, that the goal is unquestionably to try to get a handle on and end this global pandemic. I know this is an international effort utilizing the very best infectious disease experts humanity has ever produced, incorporating the very best information humanly possible, and that there is a global consensus on the efficacy and effectiveness of vaccination to accomplish this Herculean task.

              On the other side is Ron…

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Married to someone who was ‘at the table’ so to speak putting together from a healthcare perspective what needed to be translated into public policy. And that perspective was very much driven by CIHI (the national database for all medical information) and all the various data streams it produced. My spouse worked directly for the Minister of Health and so I’ve been exposed for many years to the inner workings of how health policy comes about. Many of these people continue to ‘use’ (problem solvers are especially valuable resources) the expertise of many other people who also understand this process and after time very deep bonds of friendships develop as as well as professional respect for putting all of this together. Heads of hospitals, medical departments, ongoing research private and public, all the major players from pharmaceuticals to robotics, from manufacturers foreign and domestic to suppliers and the chains they use. Balancing costs with results, investments with timelines and publications, and always an eye to how the political aspects plays out. Why recommend this kind of cancer centre here and that kind of organ transplant there, how to meet the projected demands with population shifts in order to recommend more training dollars and spaces here but reduced over there. There’s a huge amount of activity in a socialized medical system made redundant, as you know, because the delivery of ‘health care’ is a provincial concern! But there are also federal dollars and regional benefactors and it relies on really good centralized data through CIHI.

              So this is what I know about from this end of things and how ridiculous is the notion that so much policy or recommendations are from this nefarious group or that committed business. It is SO MUCH larger than that and involves incredible amounts and kinds of input, not least of which is a changing landscape based on the massive digital disruption AND opportunity that is called eHealth along with increasing advancements in efficacy in all kinds of areas. Just look at how quickly the vaccination program was designed for remote communities which were almost first on the list. The challenges were immense but there are almost no kudos for how smoothly that rollout happened. And it involved literally thousands of points of cooperation across dozens of jurisdictions.

              It has also been quite interesting hearing from various department heads in Italy and Spain back in early 2020 describe in detail the unfolding of what a pandemic can do to a local health region and better prepare for when it strikes closer to home… including accessing refrigeration trucks, stocking up on liquid oxygen, ordering plexiglass by the ton, sending out updates on best physio practices, coming up with a triage protocol, increasing capability for funeral homes. Stuff like that. And when co-workers actually die from Covid complications, or have symptoms drag on for months with no respite in sight and doctors befuddled about what they’re dealing with, it really brings home how we’re living immersed in ‘interesting’ times and how very challenging all this is to so many people.

              So my frustration with misinformation or disinformation or intransigence to even recognize the social aspect of this disease and the responsibilities that go along with it to get through these waves – especially when vaccinations are the fundamental highly effective defense knowing even Olympic athletes in their absolute physical prime who are unvaccinated are just as susceptible as the compromised senior (delta just keeps on giving it) – is very great and my tolerance is very low BECAUSE so much information is all is one direction and it actually takes effort to divert from best medical practices earned by the suffering of millions.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. I’m not in the thick of things and my spouse has moved on from that position prior to Covid even though remaining in contact with many and being a willing ear and friendly advisor when asked. So I know about the process and hear about various issues as they arise and the responses/solutions being recommended by way of public health policies plus a lot about the interferences, which can derail good policy faster than anything when it has a significant political angle.

              So I know how the anti-vaxers are a HUGE problem that has cost taxpayers not just untold millions and millions of dollars in direct care but tremendously, deeply, and adversely have profoundly and negatively affected the highly trained, experienced health care professionals most needed in treating them. This unwillingness to get vaccinated in a timely manner has unquestionably caused unnecessary but massive difficulties achieving public health goals versus this virus and significantly raised the very real risk of getting Covid even to the fully vaccinated, of giving mutations more fertile ground over a greater period of time, and prolonging this pandemic for everyone everywhere. At this rate, anti-vaxers will kill many people and in various ways they know nothing about. They are not looking beyond themselves because they think the issue is personal rather than social. They couldn’t be more wrong.

              The cost in human lives and reduction in quality of life for thousands of citizens mounts every single day by those who should get vaccinated but are not doing so for all kinds of personal reasons THEY think, the BELIEVE, matter more. This is why I keep saying people like this should go SEE what it’s like at local hospitals and TALK to those who are burning out their compassion dealing with all this shit. THEN compare the reasons for not getting two shots against the real life cost of not doing so and see up close and in person just how selfish and ignorant the choice to avoid vaccines are to all these other people suffering not just with complex and long haul Covid but what NOT having an ICU bed means to so many waiting for procedures. That’s the cost.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. tildeb, we would like things to occur the way we want things to occur. but life doesn’t work like that. i hold a different philosophy, and i think it’s healthier. we do the best we can, and then we let things be. otherwise, my friend, we go nuts! you wanna be crazy too in a sick world??

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Vaccines authorized for use in UK:

              – Pfizer-BioNTech Comirnaty (mRNA)
              – AstraZeneca Vaxzevria (viral vector based)
              – Moderna Spikevax (mNRA )

              Vaccines authorized for use in Canada: all of the above plus J&J (viral vector based)

              Like

            8. *sigh*

              Authorized does not mean used. The J&J I don’t think has been used at all in Canada, although there is some talk of using it for those AZ inoculated people who want to travel to the States because I believe (I may be wrong) that AZ was never recognized there by the government (mostly because of manufacturing issues, I believe). So the British data from which this report comes will be heavily skewed towards AZ, which has different results (because it’s a different kind of vaccine) than populations vaccinated mostly by mRNA products. All of this is complicated to interpret outside of the studied population (but not for you, of course). Hence, the comment that I’m not going to parse such a study but will allow the experts who are much more familiar with all of these considerations time to parse it for me.

              Like

            9. According to the GOC website, Canada distributed approximately 43m doses of Pfizer, 17m doses of Moderna (mRNA) and 3m doses of AZ.

              https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/2019-novel-coronavirus-infection/prevention-risks/covid-19-vaccine-treatment/vaccine-rollout.html#a4a

              So given the Israeli hospitalization data revealing a marked waning of the effectiveness of the Pfizer (mRNA) variant (especially in the older and more vulnerable groups), I think it safe to say that Canada will soon follow the same trajectory as Israel. Nor is this idle speculation: Theresa Tam, Canada’s chief public health officer already announced that the 4th wave of the Covid-19 pandemic was underway in Canada on the 12th of August.

              Like

            10. Ron, none of this news to me. I honestly don’t get why you’re commenting about waning vaccine effectiveness. I’ve written quite a lot about exactly this, why it’s to be expected (given the chemistry of the vaccines), why it’s causing so much anger at those who will not get vaccinated, why boosters are to be expected and after how long and in which combination, that’s we’ve been in a 4th wave since late July, why vaccinated areas have done so much better than where vaccination rates are lower, why Alberta has been overwhelmed and they are now practicing triage sorting, how people are dying who cannot get necessary transplants and chemo treatments and how much suffering is caused by no availability of ICU specialized staff (1/3rd of whom have quit because there’s no end to unvaccinated patients), that this is what too little too late looks like as the vaccine effectiveness reduces over time and so on. You send along this data as if it MEANS something towards your points when, in fact, it just highlights why your are very much an example of what the problem is: people who think they know better and spread dis- and misinformation about stuff they actually know very little about. What I know about is from the policy end where so much data is gathered and why this is a process as conditions on the ground keep changing – with new variants, new rates of spread, changing healthcare, the rise and interference of anti-vaxers and anti-maskers from obtaining the health policy goals FOR EVERYONE.

              Like

            11. I’m commenting about waning efficacy because you keep arguing the vaccines are doing a great job. Well, if that were true, we wouldn’t be seeing requests for booster shots and the hospitalization and death rates for the twice-jabbed over 50 group should be significantly lower than the vax-free 50+ group. Instead, it’s the direct opposite. The twice-jabbed are presenting and dying at a significantly higher rate than the vaccine free.

              But instead of addressing that issue, you keep resorting to the use of ad homs and appeals to authority.

              Liked by 1 person

            12. Where am I asking for data? I’m up to my eyeballs in data. What’s missing from the anti-vax position is interpreting the data (finding the meaning to advance our knowledge and understanding of something) to make it meaningful across the spectrum of data. So when I respond to a particular but consistent framing of data that fails to do this, yes, I’m critical of why the person is framing it this way.

              In the same sense, I’m critical of those who cherry pick data and demand I play the game of ‘explaining’ this never-ending challenge of data that seems to fit the anti-vax narrative. This is what creationists do to try to manufacture doubt about evolution, what climate change deniers do to try to manufacture doubt about humanity’s role in warming the planet, what anti-vaxers do to manufacture doubt about all kinds of childhood inoculations.

              It’s a GAME, a deplorable tactic, the means to try to MANUFACTURE doubt while demanding other people do this work FOR the denier, and done intentionally when the overwhelming evidence AND scientific consensus is contrary to the denier’s position.

              The motivation for presenting this challenge to me is NOT to learn or gain a better understanding of a fairly complex issue, nor to utilize the insight I offer into how all of this tends to inform public policy; it is to overwhelm those who respect what’s true with a gish-gallop of an unending stream of data that serves only one master: doubt. That’s why it’s manufactured. In other words, this is a TACTIC and not an honest question whatsoever.

              So it’s the person using this dishonest tactic that deserves criticism and condemnation for the dishonest motivation. And that motivation ain’t to respect what’s true nor intended to increase knowledge or reduce ignorance or gain a better understanding. It is a tactic used to deceive, to manufacture doubt where none should be, and the person doing it richly deserving of shaming because it produces nothing but harm and not one bit of insight or knowledge. These people ARE the modern version of the snake oil salesman.

              Liked by 2 people

            13. “manufacture doubt where none should be”?? you decided for all what we should or should not doubt? the mRNA has never been used on people. it is already surrounded by doubt.

              go ahead and jump on the wagon wheel of boosters of your ‘miracle’ vaccine. yee, sole Keeper of Truth!

              Liked by 1 person

            14. No. You are 100% wrong.

              This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me. It’s like claiming that someone who understands basic biology and the mechanisms that cause change over time to life is the one responsible for ‘deciding’ evolution is true. This is absolutely wrong. It is overwhelming evidence that tilts the likelihood that evolution is true. You have to ignore the entire scientific community and its consensus on this matter to make such a claim. You have to ignore reality.

              My position, my opinions about vaccination, is deduced FROM the scientific and medical consensus on this issue. THAT is what people are ignoring when they claim there is some reasonable measure of doubt about vaccination. There isn’t. Doubt is manufactured because it simply doesn’t fit reality. That’s why it’s a narrative, a particular framing, an imported contrary belief – just like creationism – that absolutely and utterly FAILS to understand why there is scientific consensus, why there is overwhelming evidence to favor high confidence, and the colossal amount of evidence that relegates doubt to the tiniest possible sliver that we just don’t understand how reality operates at all in the field of biology and have just gotten lucky that the current understanding just so happens to ALSO fit in spite of us being absolutely wrong. Compelling evidence that fits what reality demonstrates to us is why the scientific community has very high confidence in the model, in the explanation of how this virus operates and by what mechanisms, extracted from reality by how the data shows not just efficacy but real world effectiveness in doing what vaccines are meant to do. All of this would be wrong, would incorrect, would be full of errors if our biological understanding was wrong, and THIS is what anti-vaxers are actually telling us with their doubt, that you cannot trust reality and our understanding of it in this field. Ani-vaxers are INSISTING that all of this is wrong, that THEY know better, that the entire field of understanding the biology of humans and the biology of viruses are actually quite wrong. That’s why ALL anti-vaxers can offer in exchange isn’t new knowledge, new understanding, new models of explanation, new mechanisms. Anti-vaxers have none of this. All they have is ego and doubt and they are successful ONLY by increasing some measure of doubt. That’s it. Every biologist, every virologist, every doctor, everyone else one wrong, you see because of this trivial thing here or that trivial thing there.

              Scientific consensus is not imported and imposed on reality like the manufactured doubt but extracted from reality to create consensus. Once people grasp this fact, only then can they begin to actually understand how and why vaccines work.

              Liked by 1 person

            15. This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me.
              Then why aren’t you vaccinated? Still gathering convincing data to to take the plunge(r)?

              Like

            16. Who says I’m not vaccinated? I simply pointed out earlier that one is making an assumption that I am. I also pointed out that this is what substituting beliefs, substituting assumptions that may OR MAY NOT be true in place of ascertaining facts does: it creates uncertainty, creates doubt, all of which goes unnoticed by those who PRESUME their assumptions are correct first. Science works exactly opposite to this: it ascertains facts about reality and THEN creates a model – an explanation – to see if it fits. The more it fits the evidence, the higher the confidence that the explanation is correct. This process of creating confidence is in the direction from reality to beliefs about it. That’s what ‘justified true beliefs’ MEANS in understanding what knowledge IS. Knowledge comes FROM facts assembled into a possible explanation that is then tested against reality and produces evidence for or against the model. In the case of vaccinations, this evidence is unidirectional and all goes towards the models being held in such high confidence across all these fields of study that there emerges one belief, and this is called consensus. It doesn’t have to be this way at all, and there many many many explanations that have not achieved this because there is CONTRARY evidence, facts that do not fit the explanation offered. So this model, this explanation would be called a work in progress where we’re still trying to figure out what’s goin on. Happens almost all of the time. But not in the case of vaccines. ALL the facts fit our understanding about – in this case the corona – viruses. That is why people should trust and have high confidence in approved vaccines. Not because they believe this that or the other thing, nor that tildeb says this that or the other thing, but because entire scientific fields find agreement in our proposed explanation of how this virus works and what we can do to impede its progress. Doubting that consensus is… well, I think it’s the height of hubris and astounding ignorance about how the scientific method operates in reality. And how sad it is that so many can be so unknowingly gullible to buy into the doubt by a few hucksters with an agenda other than respecting what’s true.

              Liked by 1 person

            17. tilbed, there is abundant scientific evidence on the contrarian side. much was posted here on this thread- you are ignoring it all. all you want to do is stubbornly protect your perspective.

              i didn’t pull those out of my pocketses to create doubt or manufacture some tactic. i took my mom to get her vaccine; i encouraged her. i encourage anyone who is concerned about covid to get the vaccine.

              but the choice remains a personal one and should be respected as such. your bullying attitude only feeds the division that covid has created, and god knows, we didn’t need any more division.

              Liked by 1 person

            18. A pandemic is a PUBLIC health crisis that is handled not by individual choice – which may or may not be informed by good knowledge – but by public health policy. Following these public health policies is the DUTY of of those who wish to claim citizenship. Behaving as if this isn’t a pandemic but a matter of personal rights is a category mistake. Because we share the same reality, reality is a harsh task master in such matters. The decision to respect it – and the public polices to address it – is a personal responsibility and not a choice. That’s why mandates are ethical. Not going along is unethical no matter what reasons individuals might think that exempts them. So the cost to these misguided people should be paid by a loss of access to public interactions.

              Liked by 1 person

            19. According to tildeb logic we should also be withholding monoclonal antibody treatment for everyone that isn’t legitimately ill.
              -Chronic kidney disease
              -Cardiovascular disease (including congenital heart disease, hypertension)
              -Diabetes
              -Down syndrome
              -Dementia
              -Liver disease
              -Chronic lung disease
              -Sickle cell disease
              -Immunosuppressive disease or immunosuppressive treatment
              At least half of which are patient at-fault, while the other half nature has selected for removal, speaking of Hitler.
              I don’t believe for a moment that “public health officials” care about me and are just as self serving as any politico.

              Liked by 1 person

            20. And you catch these ‘infectious diseases’ (!) from whom?

              Come on, Jim… we’re talking vaccination against an infectious disease, meaning the transmission REQUIRES at least 2 people! That has absolutely nothing to do with monoclonal antibody treatment. But to claim somehow it does because of “tildeb’s logic” is not helpful. It’s disingenuous.

              Like

            21. Not really disingenuous at all. What about kids who’s parents forbid vaccination? You going after them too? What about obese kids who have an enabler for a guardian? Guilty! That’s where Tildeb logic leads. Is conspiracy theory any less organic than scientific superiority complex? You act like this is beyond reproach. I don’t think there’s a Christian out there with as much faith as you

              Like

            22. I have said on many occasions the costs and restrictions are ethical if applied to those who CAN can vaccinated but choose not to. I don’t know why this is difficult for you to grasp. There are a growing number of cases where doctors and nurses are starting to refuse in person treatment with the unvaccinated (not necessarily infected). This is basic reciprocity in action: if you’re not willing to recognize your social responsibility to me and take it into account for an interaction, then why should I recognize my social responsibility to you in order to engage? This is the tilted playing field the unwilling-to-get-vaccinated are trying to play: I can do what I want and tell the public to go fuck themselves because I’m defending ‘freedom’ but you must do what I want and provide me public services because you’re obligated!

              It’s so anti-social, stupid, unnecessary, and so harmful. I have not heard of single case where a doctor or nurse refusing to disperse monoclonal antibody treatment. It’s not the same thing at all.

              Liked by 1 person

            23. It is being used for covid patients that have serious comorbidities. Isn’t that an outrage since most of those comorbidities are from personal choice?

              Like

            24. Why would it be an outrage to try to treat people with Covid with monoclonal antibody treatments? Every little bit helps. There are kinds of treatments trying to alleviate Covid… once people get it. And the MAJOR source for getting Covid is being unvaccinated, so I don’t see whatever connection you’re trying to make here. The medical practitioner’s frustration is having an ongoing, never-ending stream of unvaccinated people doing their best to continue a pandemic. Surely you can appreciate why after a year of this unnecessary volume of patients, practitioners might be getting a little frustrated that so many people are not doing this one small thing.

              Like

            25. Certainly every good dr recommends a weight loss program to their obese patients. If they refuse to comply they just get a bigger operating table.
              Refusal of one medical aviso never dictates another. This should be no different.

              Like

            26. Someone with, say, diabetes is not infecting other people and, let’s say, by overeating is not filling ICU beds to the point of having hospitals cancel life-saving treatments and therapies and surgeries and transplants because diabetic patients have taken over the hospitals. Your analogy doesn’t work, Jim, because none of these you’ve mentioned causes the particular disease to spread to others. That’s why this a special situation – a pandemic – and involves public health intervention.

              Liked by 1 person

            27. Yes, there’s always an element of that including firefighting for crying out loud, but we don’t pretend addressing fires that are burning RIGHT NOW and threatening entire communities is really just a partisan political issue involving the ‘freedom’ of those who don’t want to pay taxes towards fire fighting!

              Liked by 1 person

            28. No, but I’m sure many people can make it seem similar. That’s what deniers of reality do, pretend up is another kind of down and that white is another kind of black.

              In fact, we’re talking about a couple of needles that are both safe and effective to do our part to help others. But that help requires all of us. That’s it. You want to pretend this is some kind of gulag moment and shroud what is a straightforward public health medical issue backed by overwhelming evidence that requires each and every one of us to do our small part as if cause to establish a political divide between authoritarians and libertines and the creation of extermination camps. I mean, come on…

              Like

            29. monicat, you state as if true, ” there is abundant scientific evidence on the contrarian side.”

              This is the problem of trying to promote doubt about vaccination programs. It’s easy to come up with data from online sources that refutes what many people believe is being promoted by vaccinations or refuting the notion that vaccines are a panacea when it’s already well established that they are not. They are a MITIGATING response, one that if properly implemented in time to enough people has the effect of stopping the spread, of saving lives, of reducing the suffering of many by interfering with the transmission rate, reducing the pool to create mutations that power variants of concern, and so on. In every way, vaccinations are a net benefit. But they also have some very small amount of risk. When risk from vaccine is compared and contrasted to risk from infection, it is obvious except to deniers of reality that vaccinations are a REALLY GOOD IDEA and have PROFOUNDLY POSITIVE effects. Not getting vaccinated produces exactly the opposite. These are the facts. They are not open to debate because reality overwhelmingly demonstrates this. To doubt this and think the doubt justified is to live in an alternate reality.

              So what these manufacturers of doubt seem not to grasp is that the so-called ‘contrary’ data he’s presenting doesn’t do what he assumes it does – the same mistake you’ve made here: it does not legitimize doubt. That’s the con job. That’s the reality denialism. Believing the doubt is legitimate to balance the real world data of vaccine effectiveness is a thinking mistake in exactly the same way that believing the doubt creationists think is legitimate to balance the overwhelming evidence for evolution is a thinking error. And a good way to recognize this error is when there is scientific consensus. Believing that there is legitimate doubt versus scientific consensus MEANS the error in likelihood belongs at our end of the spectrum with some failure to understand and not with all the scientists paired with some vast global conspiracy to explain the disconnect.

              Liked by 1 person

            30. tildeb, the contrarian evidence against this amazing efficacy and undeniable safety you keep preaching about also comes from the scientific community.

              3 scientists from Pfeizer (Rahul Khandke, Nick Carl and Chris Croce ) admitted recently that natural immunity is stronger than vaccine immunity and that the company is trying to keep that information from the public.

              look into that! it’s part of reality

              Like

            31. Oi Vey.

              You don’t have to be a scientist from Pfizer, monicat, to know this. The same is true for polio and smallpox and ebola and AIDS and so on. Yes, natural immunity is better. So if you were to ask these scientists if it’s ‘better’ to allow polio free reign, what do you imagine they might say?

              The issue is at what cost to the wider community? THAT’S where vaccines matter.

              *sigh*

              Liked by 1 person

            32. comparing apples and oranges, tildeb. you know very well the traditional vaccines kickstart your natural immunity by presenting inactivated versions of the pathogen. the mRNA shot does not do this. it tricks your body to produce a specific anti-body and this interferes with your natural immunity.

              comme ca!

              Like

            33. Your assumption that “this interferes with your natural immunity” is true for all vaccines. Whether it’s antibodies or T-cells, vaccines add information to your body’s immune response in an ‘unnatural’ way. This doesn’t make it bad. Without this kickstart to the immune response, a body needs time to figure out an effective response. During this time, the symptoms produced is what causes all the damage. Vaccines shorten this time and give the immune response a kickstart in the right direction. All of this is ‘good’ if your goal is to reduce the harm caused by infection.

              So it very much is comparing apples with apples.

              Liked by 1 person

            34. what you just said is the mRNA (which was never used before) works exactly same like traditional vaccines. you know that isn’t so.

              traditional vaccine act like dead viruses. the new mRNA shots acts like a live virus.
              a natural immune response includes dozens of anti-bodies, the mRNA shots rely on one and lack the diversity of the natural immune response.

              imagine an orchestra playing a song harmoniously raising towards a climax (this would be our natural immune system).
              the mRNA shot acts like an obnoxious trumpet player who comes in off the street, hogging all the attention right from the beginning of the song. thus, the mRNA shot interferes with the natural immune response.

              according to Dr Yeadon (ex Pfeizer chief scientist) patients who had SARS (2003) displayed immune response to Sars-Cov 2. these 2 viruses have 20% difference in their genomes. this is the robustness of a natural immune response.

              by contrast, Sars-Cov-2 variants have a maximum of 0.3% difference in their genomes). the mRNA shots are so specific they struggle to deal with these slight changes in the virus. this is not a robust and diverse immune response.

              which brings us to why the vaccine is not so efficient and we’ll require boosters, and new mRNA packages, so on. and endless series.

              Like

            35. No, I did not say, “the mRNA (which was never used before) works exactly same like traditional vaccines.” It says right in the description: ‘m’ RNA, meaning messenger. This is a new technology so OF COURSE it is unnatural in the sense of being synthetically manufactured and then added to the RNA protein strand (if I recall correctly). Even ‘traditional’ vaccines can be quite different from each other depending on how the vaccine works. These methods tend to be longer lasting BUT come with lower efficacy. In other words, every method has trade-offs. The AZ and J&J and various sino-vaccines are all more along the lines of this protein-in-serum. Notice this type has a very different efficacy profile, meaning different effects (lower immediate effectiveness, but longer lasting, slower decline in effectiveness but less effective against variants, and so on). The mRNA injection completely breaks down after a mere 2-3 weeks whereas a protein serum can last in the body for years depending on type. That’s why adverse reactions to the mRNA are usually much more immediate versus these longer lasting vaccines where adverse reactions can emerge over time.

              So it’s been a given that as the pandemic continues, the need for boosters will rise when using the mRNA vaccines, to the point where it is widely assumed by infectious disease specialists that is quite likely yearly boosters will be required but tailored for each variant of concern. This has positive and negative considerations I won’t go into here other than say this not only is expected but offers tremendous benefit to target the most dangerous of mutated viruses quickly and effectively. For example, an mRNA tailored vaccine against ebola is now currently used to arm medical people in a small region to almost immediately vaccinate the most at-risk groups and keep these outbreaks extremely local and have them peter out almost as soon as they are identified. A ‘traditional’ protein vaccine takes years to develop and not a day or two using the mRNA approach.

              So this notion of mRNAs ‘interfering’ with ‘natural’ immunity is the imported narrative that grossly distorts what’s true. If you get sick and there’s a shot available that will keep those you love protected from being infected by you and potentially harmed, I suspect you would not argue with them that it’s in their best interest to get infected now in order to promote a more robust immune system somewhere down the road. Yet that is what this narrative is trying to sell. Those who are buying it are doing so for reasons OTHER than the health and welfare of others.

              Like

            36. tildeb!
              1. RNA is not a protein. if you write that on an exam, you’d get kicked out of biology class.

              2. the flip side of the mRNA benefits you mention are that mass vaccination of non-sterelizing vaccines risks accelerating the evolution of a mutation that can escape the vaccine. just like antibiotics and superbugs. this is Darwin 101.

              3. you imply i am a puppet to a contrarian narrative, but you are puppet to the establishment narrative. one of the hallmarks of which is complete disregard to key numbers. according to medical concessus knowledge, during the pre-mRNA shot era, the risk of mortality for a non-vaccinated person who contracts covid 19 is around 1 in 100.

              many professional doctors and associations (i already posted some resources) are treating patients with prophylactic and early treatment protocols. with such interventions, the risk of mortality is reduced to levels at or below regular influenza. this is what you narrative is lacking.

              so all your halabaloo is out of proportion.

              ps conveniently, it also happens to support big pharma. this is understandable due to your profession. ciao ciao!

              Like

            37. I didn’t say RNA is a protein: I said the messenger portion is attached. This attachment ( to my understanding, which may be wrong) duplicates a portion of the protein spike of a SARS-Cov-2 virus. All of this is then metabolized by the body in only 2-3 weeks.

              I wrote all this to explain why the effects from a mRNA vaccine are much shorter in duration than a typical protein serum vaccination, which takes the body way longer to metabolize. This was in reference to you pointing out its effects require a booster, as if this was a legitimate criticism of its effectiveness as a vaccine. It isn’t. At all. In fact, this is well known for any mRNA treatments if duration is required. With various cancer treatments that use the same technology, for example, the duration is long enough with a single or double dose. But not with an ongoing pandemic that produces multiple waves and multiple variants. But is still highly effective. And this was point.

              Accelerating mutations has to be understood as a feature of the the size of the available pool for mutations to occur. If 99.9% of us were vaccinated and not infected, the mutation pool starts at.01%, which is a small pool to bring about a mutation compared to, say, 50% or 80% of all humans who are unvaccinated. That’s the pool that is FAR more likely to produce a mutation that alters the virus to become a variant of concern. But if a mutation DID arise, was a variant of concern, then yes, this makes the 99.9% highly vulnerable. Only in this sense does the narrative about mass vaccinations ‘causing’ mutations that produce variants of concern make any sense at all. That mutation is not going to arise from someone full vaccinated and outside the available pool of infected people… unless the vaccinated person DOES become infected, which is far less likely compared to an unvaccinated person but far MORE likely as that available pool of unvaccinated people remains large. To suggest vaccinations CAUSE variants of concern to arise is factually wrong.

              You once again return to this notion that treatments of infected people is somehow a criticism of vaccination programs generally and mortality specifically. It’s not. Ask any doctor! They will tell you they would prefer fewer people getting infected to begin with, people who THEN require these therapies and the number one way to do this is get more people vaccinated! It’s just that simple.

              This is the ‘hullabaloo’ you are attributing to me. It’s not about me. It’s about trying to get a better handle on how the science informs public health policies.

              Liked by 1 person

            38. tildeb, darling, the fault with your argument against evolution of the virus is that it assumes that vaccinated people will not carry the virus, or they will carry less virus.

              we know that vaccinated people can carry and transmit the virus. i quote from recent UC Davis paper “Although vaccinated people with a breakthrough infection are much less likely to become severely ill than unvaccinated, the new study shows that they can be carrying similar amounts of virus and could potentially spread the virus to other people.” Oct 4, 2021. pls see link attached.

              how many vaccinated people will become infected is currently not known.

              so, like i said the presence of mRNA shots in population set the stage for the evolution of variants that will escape the vaccine. it is only a question of time. there is little doubt about this.

              now, time for a lil clarification. RNA is the code (akin to a string with coloured beads on it) which is subsequently translated into protein.

              the mRNA shots deliver an mRNA (containing the code) for the receptor binding domain portion of the viral spike protein.

              in other words, the mRNA shots act very much like a virus in that both hijack the body’s protein fabrication machinery.

              https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people

              Like

            39. monicat: “tildeb, darling, the fault with your argument against evolution of the virus is that it assumes that vaccinated people will not carry the virus, or they will carry less virus.”

              No, I make no such assumption. As I said, the likelihood of mutation is dependent on the size of the infected pool. A fully vaxed person getting infected is far less likely than an unvaccinated person.. unless they meet with an already mutated version, in which case the vaccine may prove to be of little effect. This does not, as you say, ” set the stage for the evolution of variants that will escape the vaccine.” You make it seem seem like these variants of concern arise from vaccinated people, that it is these folk that the virus is busy busy busy finding a way to escape the bodies of their hosts. This is backwards to reality although theoretically possible. Every VOC to date has arisen from the unvaccinated population. That is where there are NO constraints on the virus and where increasing the pool of infected people – and the potential for severity of symptoms – is demonstrated in every hospital in the country where the difference is about 1 vaxed person for every 4 unvaxed and with age a much more dangerous ‘condition’ to get the virus.

              Liked by 1 person

            40. tildeb, pls read this carefully, it is crucial that you do understand.
              it is not that the virus has any ‘intent’ to escape or evolve or do anything. the presence of the vaccine-induced antibodies in hosts by definition changes the evolutionary landscape for the virus. in evolutionary biology the term is “positive selective pressure.” it refers to conditions whereby natural selection tends to favour variations that overcome the constraints imposed upon the evolving population. the variations that display greater ‘fitness’ (higher probability to replicate) become more populous.

              so, in unvaxxed hosts there is no specific selective pressure for the virus to escape the mRNA induced spike protein antibody simply because unvaxxed hosts don’t present the mRNA-induced spike to the viral population within their bodies.

              on the other hand, viral populations inside vaxxed carriers are indeed presented with the mRNA-induced spike protein fragment.

              by definition, the mRNA-shots absolutely do create positive selective pressure for randomly occuring viral variants that could escape the mRNA shot induced antibody-immunity.

              there are cases of previous vaccines that suffered exactly from this effect: the bacterium streptococcus pneumoniae escaped a first vaccine (Prevnar 7 which was recommended for all U.S. children) and then it escaped the second, replacement vaccine (Prevnar 13) that was designed to fill the gap created by the first.

              this process is exactly analogous to super-bugs and antibiotics or to the predator-prey ‘evolutionary arms race.’

              Like

            41. That would explain all the variants of concern that have arisen from polio and smallpox and rubella and diphtheria and, and, and….

              Good grief.

              Liked by 1 person

            42. hello tildeb, two things:

              1. don’t forget that mutation rates among viruses vary widely. smallpox mutates slowly while influenza is fast. this is one reason why new influenza vaccines need to be concocted every year.

              2. all your examples pertain to traditional vaccines, not the fancy mRNA tech. you are basically admitting that viral evolution (whether or not it was affected by the vaccines) was able to cause trouble for traditional vaccines. but the catch is that traditional vaccines generally confer a broader immune response compared to new mRNA tech.

              so you see why the situation with covid-19 is a perfect storm whereby the SARS-Cov-2 virus mutates quickly AND the mRNA tech induces a fragile, one-antibody immunity.

              ps to quote one virologist who has written about this issue: “the mRNA shots and their ‘narrow molecular focus’ (of immunity) raise the spectre of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode”.

              have a nice saturday!🎈

              Like

            43. Variants of SARS-CoV-2 that competes with the delta variant since mass vaccination rollout:

              – _______________ … .. . . . . . .

              Yeah. Nothing.

              In the same time frame prior to mRNA mass vaccinations, 4 variants including the last one, delta. The mRNA vaccine is designed for the same spike protein so this ‘fear’ about creating room for a new variant by using mRNA vaccines does match reality, although the possibility is always going to be there just like it is there for other communicable but vaccine-addressed diseases.

              In other words, the notion of creating variants more deadly ’caused’ by a vaccine is a tactic used to manufacture doubt, a doubt that is infinitesimally less probable than the very real danger from Covid mitigated by this kind of messenger vaccine.

              Also, should a variant of concern arise, the mRNA technology can create another target within hours and begin manufacturing a different vaccine within days. In comparison, a serum vaccine takes years.

              Liked by 1 person

            44. tildeb, for a public policy wonk, you have an appalling ignorance of how creative science actually works.

              1. in Israel, the efficacy of the new shots has dropped from the original 95% to 39% (NY TIMES July 23 2021).

              2. in Israel as of 15 Aug, 59% of the 514 patients hospitalized with severe or critical covid-19, were fully vaccinated (SCIENCE Aug 2021).

              3. in Singapore as of July 2021, vaccinated people made up 75% of recent covid cases (REUTERS 23 July 2021).

              4. in England in early Sept the fully vaxxed accounted for 75% of covid-19 deaths (PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND REPORT)

              5. in the Canadian capital city, it has recently been reported that out of 535 new covid cases 147 are in fully vaxxed.

              6. while your precious mRNA-tech-induced immunity is waning like a magician’s puff of smoke, it has been shown that people who survived SARS (SARS-Cov-1) circa 2003, still have memory T-cells that recognize covid-19: “…patients who recovered from SARS (the disease associated with SARS-Cov infection) possess long-lasting memory T cells that are reactive to the N protein of SARS-Cov 18 years after the outbreak of SARS in 2003; these T cells displayed cross-reactivity to the N protein of SARS-Cov-2.”(NATURE Aug 2020).

              in other words natural immunity, like an orchestra, makes far better music than your ridiculous, blaring, one-trick trumpet mRNA-tech.

              7. finally, take a look at this scientific article (if you dare):
              Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein
              https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780

              the paper estimates the time to viral escape of the mRNA-shots. Answer: not very long.

              Biologists probably ignore this paper because it uses differential equations and most biologists (and arrogant public policy wonks fall into this category too) are deathly afraid of math.

              it is beyond time for you to wake up and get your head out of the pocket of big pharma.

              PS
              there are cases of previous vaccines that have suffered from pathogen evolutionary escape. See:
              https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathogens-to-evolve-20180510/

              in one case the bacterium streptococcus pneumoniae escaped a first vaccine (Prevnar 7 which was recommended for all U.S. children).

              it then escaped the second, replacement vaccine (Prevnar 13) that was designed to fill the gap created by the first. ‘Leaky’ vaccines.

              happy thanksgiving!

              Liked by 1 person

            45. Remember I said something about age being a logarithmic risk? Why do you just gloss over these facts and then pretend it doesn’t matter relating to breakthrough cases? This is all about the risk being elevated by those NOT getting vaccinate to those who ARE vaccinated! So let’s review your found stats with this in mind:

              1 & 2: “The majority of these patients received two vaccine doses at least five months ago, are over the age of 60 and also have chronic illnesses known to exacerbate a coronavirus infection. They range from diabetes to heart disease and lung ailments, as well as cancers and inflammatory diseases that are treated with immune-system suppressing drugs, according to Reuters interviews with 11 doctors, health specialists and officials.”

              This is NOT evidence that vaccines don’t work or elevate the risk of variants. It is evidence for mandatory vaccinations.

              3: “The Singapore data also showed that infections in the last 14 days among vaccinated people older than 61 stood at about 88%, higher than the figure of just over 70% for the younger group.”

              Well golly gee whiz, same story. Now please notice we’re dealing with percentages here. This means:

              “As more and more people are vaccinated in Singapore, we will see more infections happening among vaccinated people,” Teo Yik Ying, dean of the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health at the National University of Singapore (NUS).”

              In other words, it is EXPECTED that Covid infections would be breakthrough cases and that would show up as higher percentages from the vaccinated because the pool from the unvaccinated is shrinking. Why does this understanding matter? Because:

              “There is continuing evidence that vaccination helps to prevent serious disease when one gets infected,” the ministry said, adding that all the fully vaccinated and infected people had shown no symptoms, or only mild ones. Infections in vaccinated people do not mean vaccines are ineffective, experts said.”

              But that’s not how you are using this data. You are using it as if it supports what YOU think rather than what infectious disease doctors and virologists tell us it means.

              4: Again, “Breakthrough” deaths – occurring at least two weeks after the second jab along with a first positive PCR Covid test – tend to happen in the most vulnerable, men and those with weakened immune systems, with the average age being 84.” There’s that age factor hard at work. But the percentage! 75% sounds so terrible! Yet:

              “But overall numbers were very small – they accounted for only 0.5% of all deaths from Covid-19 over the first six months of the year.” That’s why using percentages is so misleading. It is not saying what you BELIEVE it says; it does NOT that. It supports what infectious disease doctors and virologists having been telling us all along.

              5: About 85% of people over the age of 12 in Ottawa are vaccinated. The salient news here that you’re missing is that about 75% of new infections are coming from the 15% who are unvaccinated. This is a clue, monicat, about the efficacy of vaccines. But again, because the pool is large from the vaccinated, it would be expected that breakthrough cases would become larger and larger percentages over time. This is just basic statistical reading that requires a minimum of understanding HOW to read this kind of data. This matters because NOTHING you’ve raised here says what you think it does. That’s not my fault and it’s not the fault of public health policy or the advice from infectious disease and virology experts; this constant misreading of data fall squarely on you.

              6: yes, natural immunity is stronger because it involves several KINDS of immune mechanisms. The problem is the cost of getting there, a real life cost in lives lost and effected, as well as about 15 trillion dollars in lost productivity. So far. Unlike you, I think this cost matters when there’s an obvious and safe way to reduce all of it.

              7: Great discussion paper. It’s all about mathematical modelling of potential mutations and suggestions of how best to respond to them in our vaccination strategies.

              “This has implications for SARS-CoV-2 disease control strategies, as one possible solution to the problem of immune evasion by SARS-CoV-2 that has been proposed is to develop a new vaccine update every year, similar to influenza.”

              Guess how anti-vaxers would present this info? Yeah, very much like you have here. Sure, the more targeted the vaccine, the more likely it’s a one trick pony. But that one trick pony has saved many tens of thousands of lives in the US alone. So far. And that’s against the original virus and 4 variants of concern. One mutation does not a variant of concern raise: the delta variant produced 16 just on the spike protein alone and it basically killed off al the other variants. That’s why these discussion papers are not saying what you THINK they are saying. Leave that up to the experts to tell us what they think it means and then we should follow their advice even if WE think they’re wrong. That likelihood is significantly less than the likelihood WE have misread data and misinterpreted what it means.

              Liked by 2 people

            46. tildeb, you said “…using percentages is so misleading”. that’s good to hear! how about misleading the general population by using relative risk without quoting absolute risk?

              the establishment has been louder than a thrash metal band in broadcasting the 95% efficacy for the Pfizer shot. this is a relative risk. they never bothered to mention that in the Pfizer trial both the unvaxxed group and the vaxxed group showed less than 1% absolute risk of illness (162/18,325 versus 8/18,198 respectively). this renders an absolute risk reduction of 0.84%.

              the convenient omission of absolute risk in communications relating to the shot was/ is contrary to best practices of data analytics and is contrary to explicit guidance from the FDA. furthermore, with such low absolute numbers the 95% figure shouldn’t have been taken seriously in the first place. a little misinterpretation of a few numbers and it would change by 25%. The fact that this number was media-amplified with a power akin to a PCR replicator reaction, only serves to illustrate the stinky aromas coming from your side of the fence.
              thus a question: where have you been the past 10 months, oh defender of analytical integrity?

              what have you and your bosses and your CIHI number-crunchers been doing about the rampant relative risk fear-mongering by your big pharma masters?

              FYI
              -treatment group: 0.04% mild or severe disease.
              – placebo group: 0.88% mild or severe disease.
              – absolute risk reduction = (0.88 – 0.04) = 0.84%
              – relative risk reduction = (0.88 – 0.04) / 0.88 = 95%

              regarding headlines (1) – (7), your reply was somewhat predictable. i was aware of the age stratification. i was also self-aware i.e. that I was motivated by my specific model and hypothesis (i.e. that this mRNA stuff is crap).
              you on the other hand don’t seem aware that you also have biases that come from your model and its motivations.
              you basically argue that, yes numbers are increasing all over the place but this is totally expected and there is nothing to worry about.
              but in fact you never predicted those numbers. you’re just reacting to them and cramming them retrospectively into your model.
              for you, “This is all about risk being elevated by NOT getting vaccinated…” for me it’s about being wary and vigilant to emerging trends that would betray escape (Darwin 101).

              re-read the excerpt you posted:
              “As more and more people are vaccinated in Singapore, we will see more infections happening among vaccinated people,”
              yep! that’s the definition of a crappy (leaky) vaccine. nothing to see here folks! it’s affecting the older age group more than the younger. yep! just like when the pandemic started with the Wuhan strain.

              i’m sure you didn’t consider the possibility that the shots might have helped weaken the immune systems of some of the vaccinated.
              you didn’t consider that an increasing proportion of the newly vaccinated were already exposed to the virus and/or contracted non-symptomatic (or close) covid-19 and had developed natural immunity before they received their shot(s).
              the possibility thus arises that your stats are increasingly stealing beneficial outcomes caused by natural immunity, not by the shots themselves. more importantly, if/when a serious escape occurs and/or an ADE-capable variant appears, you won’t see it because you will be too busy fudging the numbers so that they fit the model you have foisted upon the world.

              finally about references 6 and 7. glad you agree that natural immunity is better. your corporate and political masters (along with gullible medics who should have known better) were recently fighting tooth-and-nail to convince everyone the exact opposite.

              they are now trying to convince you that every child should get the shot. this is yet another abominable tactic on par with the maligning of natural immunity.

              7. i’m glad you liked the PLOS article.
              perhaps you didn’t notice something though: you just made a 180 degree pirouette change of direction.
              after months of arguing grandiloquently that escape wasn’t even worth considering, you finally, casually state that escape is indeed possible. at times you can be brilliant, but at times you are as flaky as a trans-fat pie crust.

              let’s close this discussion.
              i sincerely hope you are right about the jabs. but I don’t believe you are right.
              and if my suspicions come to pass, there will much long-term damage caused by the jabs, both to public health and to democracy.
              at that time, your masters will be the ones who, as a matter of political survival, will viciously blame everything on the 15% of neanderthal anti-vaxxers who supposedly ruined it for everyone.

              Liked by 1 person

            47. You Stated — “What’s missing from the anti-vax position is interpreting the data (finding the meaning to advance our knowledge and understanding of something) to make it meaningful across the spectrum of data.”

              My Response — I disagree. You could have the best data ever but nobody cares. If you want an antivaxxer to understand, then you need to meet them at the ICU where they can hear you.

              As for the rest, your brush is so big that it attempts to paint the sky, so I’ll just disagree in general.

              Some people are not convinced
              Some people think it’s a big lie (that sounds strangely familiar)
              Some people believe it but they hold “liberty” above health
              Some people believe it but they are paranoid

              In short it’s relative, people disbelieve for a myriad of reasons.

              My solution: Let them do what they want and the virus will sort it all out.

              At the end of the day it’s not like we are inoculating the poor of the world so it’s going to mutate anyway.

              If it kills off the human race it won’t be because of antivaxxers, it will be because of the sea of people we refused to spend money on to inoculate. Millions of unvaxxed waiting for their first shot while we get our third.

              Just saying

              Liked by 1 person

          1. There’s nothing to interpret. Barring a tabulation error, the numbers speak for themselves: the double-vaccinated over 50 are no more protected from the variant than the unvaccinated.

            But if you think my thinking is in error, then kindly inform us what it really says.

            Like

            1. The book review does not address the facts presented by the data in the report — namely, that the effectiveness of the vaccines not only fades after a few months, but that those who received two doses fair no better (and much worse for those over 50) than those who received none. This fact is acknowledged by the “experts”, which is why they are now promoting a third course of booster shots be administered to the most vulnerable (i.e., those with severe illnesses and immunocompromised systems).

              Liked by 1 person

            2. I didn’t say it did, Ron. I said it might help understand why data sets need to be interpreted by experts.

              Good grief, but your reading comprehension is poor.

              Like

            3. Yet in my second last comment I specifically requested that you inform us what the data says — not why data sets need to be interpreted by experts.

              So perhaps you might want to tend to your own lack of reading comprehension prior to accusing others of same.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. And what exactly are those “very good” reasons? Care to enumerate them?

              Because simply asserting my thinking is wrong without demonstrating why while hiding behind the cloak of authority for all your pronouncements is poor form.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. No you didn’t, and anyone reading the comment thread can verify that. I presented a report from Public Health England, to which you responded with an ad hominem. I responded that those were the conclusions reached by the report writers and told you to take it up with them. You then claimed “you think the data supports what you believe. This is a thinking error you keep making.” I reiterated that the numbers speak for themselves and offered you an opportunity to rectify my thinking error by asking you to tell us what the data really says. Instead, you linked to a book review instead. I responded that it did not answer my question and you ridiculed my reading comprehension. I reminded you of my original request and you declined to do so, stating you had “very good reasons” not to do so. I then asked for you to enumerate those reasons and now you claim you have already done so. Which brings us to this point. Oh, and there was a little joke about a rash, which turned into a comment chain of it’s own, but that’s not important for this leg of the conversation.

              Liked by 1 person

            1. I think that’s truly ridiculous, Jim. You cannot do your own research unless you honestly think you can achieve the same level of understanding against a background of knowledge that experts as a group have obtained. By trusting yourself over and above everyone else, you are wide open to all kinds of fallacies with absolutely no way to keep them in check because you don’t know enough. Your effort would be much better spent trying to understand WHY people with far more expertise than you in every single subject think this is more likely than that. Compare and contrast and USE the expertise offered to do just that.

              The four most important words I think are: I do not know.

              Liked by 2 people

            2. Yes, Jim. “Trust in the EXPERTS with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine understanding.” Tildebs 3:5

              In the same manner that the Church of Rome once explicitly forbade the laity be permitted to own or read the Bible for themselves without its expert guidance, so too are we now asked to stop reading the data for ourselves without the guidance of the (uncited) “experts” and certified interpreters of the data.

              Liked by 2 people

            3. Hence the reason I said, “understand WHY people (snip) think this is more likely than that. Compare and contrast and USE the expertise offered to do just that.”

              I mean, seriously Ron, do you stop reading – or even comprehending – when you hit a notion that causes your self-certainty to waver?

              You utilize expertise every day and in all kinds of ways without assuming you’re handing over all your personal autonomy to some nefarious governmental overlords. Or do you pull out your own teeth?

              Like

            4. It bears repeating that we are examining the trends revealed by the data (cases, admission, deaths) obtained from hospital records, here — not government policy.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Always my first response. And no matter how much I learn about anything, it’s always the leading edge because it’s true: I don’t know what I don’t know. My beliefs and opinions are ALWAYS subject to change because of exactly this. And that’s why I usually focus any confidence I have on likelihood.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. haha! you say that, but you are rock solid in your opinions. it is important to observe neutrally how our mind operates, what triggers it, and why.
              covid has brought us all to the edge of our comfort, hehe.
              have a lovely sunday!

              Liked by 1 person

            7. someone told me once “Never give all your power to the doctors”. most of the time, all they do is prescribe pills. now i challenge, i ask questions, i research all i can myself. they were useless in treating asthma except to prescribe stronger and stronger medication. i learnt to manage it by myself, and rarely need any medication. if i was to go their way, i’d just be spending hundreds on prescriptions. for every pill you take, there are two other needed to manage the symptoms. is this “medicine”?

              there is no concept of preventative medicine, just treatment of symptoms. even with covid, the immune vitamins are so important right now (vit D, C, A, zinc and quercetin) do you ever hear the medical establishment suggesting people take these as a precaution? a simple and effective way to boost yours system. they tell you nothing except take the vaccine. totally disempowering.

              Liked by 2 people

            8. Totally agree! And the health mandates (stay inside and avoid all human contact) have created additional stress, which further erodes a person’s health and emotional well-being.

              Liked by 2 people

            9. Part of the history and physical exam is collecting or finding out what medications people were taking. Many, many times the patients were taking medication and didn’t know what they were for.
              Panamanians were actually a little worse at this. If you don’t have prior medical knowledge the docs really wouldn’t tell you anything, just give you a rx.
              We hauled a lot of people to town to go to the doctor and they would come out not knowing their diagnosis, but had a prescription to fill. Weird.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. That is not an accurate portrayal of my family physician at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Wholistic health has been predominant in medical teaching for decades now. I get a monthly newsletter that helps all patients of the practice to better understand how things are and what the latest recommendations are based on. This runs the gamut from foods to drugs including a long list of problematic supplements and ‘alternative’ medicine that causes so much under-reported trouble for pharmacological intervention (because, hey, the patient always knows best having gone to medical school for…. ummm…. well… you know….).

              But I understand your point: if you go to surgeon to talk about a problem, what are the chances surgery will be recommended? Patients have a responsibility to understand their central role in their own health decisions and so this necessarily involves learning how to think about it. Many docs – the good ones, I think – are there to help in just this way: by teaching. But you cannot teach an unwilling student or, as I like to say, I can’t learn you nuthin.

              Liked by 1 person

            11. Patients have a responsibility to understand their central role in their own health decisions and so this necessarily involves learning how to think about it. “ So, if my doctor recommends I don’t get the vaccine, you’re good with that?

              Like

            12. wow, i never thought i’d hear words like “wholistic” or “alternative” out of your mouth. i am well pleased, tildeb. there is hope for our relationship.

              Liked by 2 people

            1. The point is, it doesn’t matter what you believe, Ron. What matters is what is true. And I’ve got nothing to do with that other than respect it to the best of my ability.

              Like

            2. No, the point is you’re either double-vaxed, or you’re not. And if it turns out to be the latter, all your long-winded browbeating boils down to little more than “do as I say, not as I do”.

              As to your statement “What matters is what is true” – – that sounds eerily similar to Joe Biden’s “We choose truth over facts.”

              The two are related, but not synonymous. Facts represent hard data, whereas truth incorporates beliefs about those facts.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Elevating context over content is the tactic used by those with an agenda or something to sell. My vaccination status has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with presenting relevant content to this issue, although I mentioned this absence of fact did not affect your beliefs about me. You simply assumed. You do not know whether or not I am vaxed or not because you’ve never asked and I’ve never offered. You can guess, but the point was that you were forming opinions based not on fact but on your beliefs. This is not good thinking practice and leads to making exactly the kind of thinking errors that populate your position on this issue, makes you wide open to relying on fallacies without any means to correct for them. This is why I said your beliefs don’t determine reality even though it’s quite easy to search online and find data that SEEMS to support them. And you do this mistake over and over again oblivious to the order in which your opinions are formed; you are not arriving at a conclusion AFTER assessing good data but searching for and finding data that you think supports your imported beliefs. This is EXACTLY how religious belief works and why such belief has never, does not and probably never will produce one jot or tittle of KNOWLEDGE about reality and everything it contains.

              As for the content of this particular data set, one thing popped out to me because I know that to compare and contrast accurately – as well as measure these differences – relies on using the same metric (Sing along if you want: “You can measure at your leisure if your units stay the same,” goes the Electric Company’s song for pre-schoolers). Let’s see if you notice. And I am certainly no expert in statistical analysis but I do know enough (okay, maybe I’ve been trained in spite of my own eagerness to jump to conclusions) to not allow context to prejudge the content.

              Like

            4. ” My vaccination status has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with presenting relevant content to this issue” Other than the fact your concealing other data that has convinced you not to be vaccinated.

              Liked by 1 person

  5. Molnupravir. This looks like a promising anti-viral medication one takes AFTER a SARS or MERS infection (by Merck). But, because it interferes with the virus’ copying ability, there is legitimate concern about potential DNA damage to the host. That will be the major focus by the FDA before any ’emergency’ approval from the 50% reduction in hospitalizations and deaths revealed by the latest results.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You sure have no problem peddling misrepresentation like it deeply nourishing facts: Dr Malone admits he was not the ‘architect’ of the mRNA vaccines but one of the literally hundreds of people who helped bring the technology to bear. His contribution was with lipids to penetrated the barrier… along with 3 others at that time and in that place (in other words, a team approach he readily admits). He was the first one to then leave the field… well over 20 years ago and long before mRNA became anything more than purely theoretical.

      So to use his name as if it magically backs up anti-vax misinformation today reveals not an impartial view but a highly biased approach. Again, the interwebs is just chalk full of data that can be used for any issue about anything that seems to support the conclusion one wants. So when these kinds of names continue to crop up, a very large Red Flag should automatically be hoisted because the position is already pre-determined to use the name as if revealing scientific merit. Malone also got Covid and then took a Moderna shot to try to alleviate his symptoms… after the fact.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It hard for me to believe These “rare occurrences” known as “breakthrough cases” when it seems like everyone I know, knows someone who has died. 4 breakthrough deaths in my little town of 185.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. So here’s the thing about vaccines and variants… a vaccination program works best when distributed in large numbers quickly and consistently. The goal is to reach a critical number of people and interfere with the transmission of the virus. This is called ‘herd immunity’. The longer it takes to reach ~90% vaccination in the case of SARS-CoV-2 to reach herd immunity for this virus, the more variants arise and the less effective dealing with the new variants are the original vaccines. Reasons, donchaknow. What results between the time vaccines are widely available and the population reaching herd immunity are called ‘breakthrough cases’ where the virus finds a host in a fully vaccinated person and still produces complex symptoms. And yes, these vaccinated breakthrough cases are still vulnerable – but to a much lesser extent – of complex reactions to the virus. Even death. So to compensate, boosters are shown to bring the more vulnerable population back up to a higher level of immune response. People can still get Covid but the results are between 75-99% better than those in same condition but unvaccinated. Win win.

            So, the anti-vaxers and misinformation peddlers make it more difficult to achieve herd immunity by making the willing pool of people smaller (meaning more people are unsure and so unwilling to get vaccinated while the rest of us then must make up for those principled cowards who are unwilling to get vaccinated for the welfare of the whole and try to convince others to avoid getting vaccinated), making it take longer to reach the necessary numbers for herd immunity with an assortment of idiotic ‘counter’ information and close to criminal demonstrations targeting healthcare workers and vaccination clinics. These are the folk who intentionally vilify and impede and spend effort undermining vaccination programs that unquestionably work (thus increasing the risk for the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike), and then sit back with smug and deplorable satisfaction that their efforts to make this pandemic worse have succeeded, that they have done their part to cast a negative effect on everyone in order to pretend their misinformation and disinformation and anti-vaccination lies were right all along. It’s revolting because it’s so damn malicious.

            This is one reason why other vaccination programs are mandatory for children: because so many parents think themselves wiser and more knowledgeable than the entire medical profession that has overwhelming evidence to back up the efficacy of these programs and give in to this manufactured doubt. Jim Bob and Dwayne and Candi all know better than any damn infectious disease expert doctor, donchaknow. That’s the level of idiocy real world governments and real world healthcare professionals are dealing with on a daily basis, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, wave after wave after wave, and seem unconcerned and even oblivious that their efforts are in fact driving nurses and doctors out of the professions most required to deal with real world complex patients due to this pandemic. This requires towering ignorance, egoism, selfishness, and gob-smacking stupidity… all gussied up to look ‘sciencey’ and therefore equivalent to the best medical knowledge ever assembled on the planet. And the peddler of this addictive drug called Doubt feels ever-so special and insightful because, well, the intertubes, donchaknow. It’s so stupid, it’s not even stupid. It’s pernicious to the core and all of us – vaccinated and unvaccinated – get to enjoy the poisoned fruit of their labor. Mommy and Daddy must be so proud.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. relax, tildeb, i’m not a threat. i’m nearly a monk, having minimum contact with the outside world. one of the reasons i decided a vaccine is not necessary for me. had i worked, i might have decided otherwise. oh, wait, my boss would have decided otherwise 🙂
              stay well!

              Liked by 2 people

            2. You know, I’m beginning to feel a great deal of empathy for the abuse being visited upon that table you keep pounding away on.

              Like

  6. You Stated — “For whatever reason nature has selected this process, yet humanity is serious enough to think it can hold it at bay ad-nauseum.”

    My Response — We are nature and it has decided to change at will, no more waiting millions of years.

    You Stated — “We need 8 billion more people?”

    My Response — Think bigger, we need 800 billion more people. There are more than a billion planets for every one human out there.

    You Stated — Now what do you do about that?

    My Response — Expand out into the universe. The big empty is waiting for something exciting like us to end the boredom.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The trouble is that the nearest “potential” habitable planets are many light years away. You’d have to put everyone to sleep for the trip and then cross your fingers that they not only make it to their intended destination in one piece, but also wake up on cue and quickly acquire the know-how to adapt to their new environment that would most likely be host to any number of unknown dangers. (Though I suppose the challenge of trying to stay alive would preoccupy them thoroughly enough to alleviate any feelings of ennui.)

      Liked by 3 people

        1. Don’t hold your breath ‘cuz it ain’t gonna’ happen in our lifetime and most likely not at all unless our brains get a WHOLE lot smarter in the next several hundred years.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I don’t doubt we will eventually develop such technology, but even a ship traveling at the speed of light would require 14 (earth) years to reach the nearest currently known star system having a potentially habitable planet — and it’s a gamble what awaits once you get there — so I think we’ll stuck on this rock for a long while yet.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Hmmm. The scientists have “written a paper.” Fairly common among scientists that study various scientific possibilities (including but not limited to space travel). Until it moves a little closer into the arena of reality, methinks it’s will rest at the bottom of the pile designated as “Potential Ideas for Space Travel.” 👩‍🚀👨‍🚀 🚀🪐

              Liked by 2 people

            2. It’s a bit more than a paper. NASA is working on a project with Warp Drive, it’s in phase one (math). Hard to say how long they will be working it out but different engineers have been working since around 2014 (slow moving target) but not just a paper.

              It’s not exciting like a tv show but they are serious about the technology and are applying resources.

              Have faith 😉

              Liked by 1 person

            3. Like I said, I don’t doubt we will eventually develop the technology; but as the presenter in the video acknowledges, moving from mathematical theory to practical reality is difficult step. And in all likelihood, the “passengers” taking those first series of test flights won’t be human.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. You Stated — “…moving from mathematical theory to practical reality is difficult step.”

              My Response — It’s more of a predictable step since we are on a proven trajectory to do so.

              Walking
              Running
              Horse
              Buggy
              Car
              Rocket
              Ion Drive
              FTL Drive

              Just a matter of time, not an if but a when

              But I will acknowledge, for sake of argument, that we do not have a publicly visible FTL drive at the moment.

              Like

  7. Several times now, Jim, you have mentioned people treated by public health authorities as if nothing more than ‘cattle’ and their rights improperly infringed upon through public health orders. I thought this explanation by a much respected Constitutional lawyer might help clarify:

    “The libertarian view is that the rights of the individual must not be sacrificed to the interests of the collective. But that is entirely the wrong picture of how rights work. The common good does not “override” individual rights. Rather the common good determines the boundaries of those rights from the beginning since, in the end, the goods of individual and family life can only be enjoyed in a healthy and flourishing polity. The common good is itself the highest good of individuals.

    Even our physical liberties are rightly ordered to the common good of the community when necessary. Just ask those drafted for military service in a national emergency. Our economic liberties can also be subordinated to the common good: consider those whose property is destroyed by the government to prevent the spread of a fire. Covid-19 is like a spreading wildfire, and the vaccine mandate is analogous in principle to such crisis measures. Our health, our lives and our prosperity, are intertwined in ways that make it entirely legitimate to enforce precautions against lethal disease — even upon objectors.”

    And the legal precedent I mentioned in an earlier comment comes from a 1905 decision, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, where the Supreme Court sustained mandatory vaccination in the face of a smallpox outbreak in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The Court was emphatic: “Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.” It is against this paramount necessity that allows the law great flexibility for executive power to be used towards this end.

    You’re welcome to disagree with any of this, of course, but it’s a legal explanation nevertheless.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I have no problem with this, although I do live a little differently than most do. The cattle references are usually based on how I recognize the connection between livestock management and people management. I understand how and why it is this way, but I don’t care to live like that. I’ve spent 10 years of my adult life living on the range, in the mountains, and in the jungle with my family. 10 years off work to do what I enjoy, Ive seen that I’d rather be free of the moldings of society, though it is hard to escape it permanently.
      I do think being overprotected my laws and guardrails doesn’t really provide experience that fosters a high level of common sense, which is now garnered from books without practical experience. These are the governing bodies and policy makers. It is the end of an era. I will embrace the change but won’t be sorry to leave it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Of course, it pretty much goes without saying, Jim, that not everyone has the opportunity or the desire or the wherewithal to do as you have. Thus, for most of “the rest of us” we must abide by what others have determined is the best path for the masses. Of course, individually, we may not agree and attempt to fight against “the system,” but in the big picture, we’re often on the losing side.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. I have a son in law in the military and he gave me this. Seems to be the hyper controlled sampling that we’re looking g for.

      Like

      1. Who is this? Where is she getting this information? What position of authority does she hold to have access to total all the records? Why is there no linking information given here or in her talk… even so much as a name? How is she relating vaccinations and of which kind and when they were given to the cases she is reporting are the ‘result’? Where’s the information… you know… data? Why hasn’t the same information – the same data – appeared everywhere by the same ratio of ‘complications from Covid vaccines’? I can assure you the number of myocarditis reports in Canada do not reflect what she’s claiming here. Why? If these claims were true, we should have corroborating evidence. Where is it?

        Look, when a tiny fraction of vaccinated women were getting strokes, the entire line of vaccines was pulled in many countries to err on the side of caution. The same would happen with any vaccine that produced the kinds of ‘complications’ she says are linked to receiving it. So where’s the data?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. All I can find is military members are having a higher that average myocarditis presentation post vaccine, but it’s not near the numbers she’s saying. The total increase in other general diagnoses would be a stat I’d be interested in.

          Like

          1. If I may interject personal opinion here … “Stats” can be found to repudiate or confirm pretty much any issue. It all depends on how much confidence each individual has in the source that’s presenting the information. In the case of the virus, we’ve all seen (and extensively discussed) that people put their trust in widely diverse sources. Most likely it will be the history books that will validate the data that was the most accurate.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. It is staggering to walk through cemeteries and see all those older era child markers. But that was normal. Are we asking for more than we can maintain? Yes. Should we stop it? No

              Liked by 1 person

            2. I wonder what beliefs we’ll find? You think they will have heard of Jesus, Allah, and YHWY? That would be some fine evidence if you ask me.

              Like

    3. Allot of what you say is just generalities. But at base there is sometimes a balance between peoples freedoms and the government’s restrictions of those freedoms because it thinks it knows better what we should do. In the case of small pox with a huge mortality rates that balancing act looks much different than covid where most people can choose to get a vaccine and have an extremely low mortality rate.

      People who would give up freedom for safety deserve neither. Ben Franklin said something similar but the context he said is the opposite of the way I mean it.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. There is formula that applies to balance these values in every situation that everyone will agree on.

          But Historically we can say people came to the US because they wanted more freedom rather than a government that was enforcing it’s own balance of safety. Early on it was pretty clear that the European governments wanted to keep souls safe so they tried to make people follow what it thought was the correct religion. Americans said they would rather take their own risks based on their won ideas. So in the US we are known for typically balancing a bit more in favor of freedom compared to other places in the world.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Getting vaccinated does not mean losing one’s freedom. At the very least it means doing one’s civic duty to MAXIMIZE everyone’s freedom with the smallest possible infringement. That’s the ‘formula’ used for everything from traffic rules to elevator capacity: there has to be a recognition that maximum personal freedom depends on public constraints on everyone.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. It’s not okay to think 10% or so of people can pretend traffic rules don’t apply to them in the name of freedom and individual rights. It’s a bizarre perspective and terrible reasoning. We are not exchanging transportation ‘freedom’ to insist on mandatory rules imposed on everyone and enforced by the state to better facilitate a basic level of safety for everyone on the road. The vaccine is no different as an unquestionable improvement on the safety for everyone in the public domain and so imposing and enforcing this baseline is not a restriction but a rule of the road that everyone who wants to use it must abide. It’s the cost everyone shares so that everyone can get safer access to shared spaces.

              Don’t agree with the rules of the road? Fine. You are free to stay off of them. Don’t agree with vaccinations? Fine. You are free to stay out of any shared space. Good luck with that and enjoy the appropriate level of freedom from such a restrictive choice you are making.

              But what is unreasonable is to pretend imposing and enforcing any kind of common law is an unconstitutional infringement of personal freedom and rights; there is a third party recognized as ‘the public’ and the public good and this element has to constrain unfettered personal freedom in order to find that balance with maximizing everyone’s personal freedom and rights.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. I wonder why they are called ‘indicators’? And I wonder if indicating intentions might be a safer way to alert others when driving? Hmmm… if only there were some data… Ron?

              Liked by 1 person

            3. You actually learn to be very alert because you don’t know what the other guys are going to do. My data is my own experience

              Like

            4. You think not being able to trust fellow motorists (driving at speed in 1 ton metal battering rams) is a good thing?

              Am I missing something here?

              Like

            5. It works because you don’t trust your fellow motorists. It is trusting the mistrust and going with the flow of things.

              Like

            6. Considering I haven’t had a sniffle in 20 months? It’s not as fun as the flesh pots of Egypt or a Roman bath house, but there is something to it.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. My assumption when driving anything anywhere is that everyone is out to kill me all the time, and then drive accordingly. So far, so good!

              Like

            8. tildeb, i am already healthy. me taking a vaccine i don’t need will not improve anyone’s safety any more than wearing a seatbelt in bed. how is this concern for “improving the safely of everyone” when the transmission of the virus is equal even between fully vaccinated folks??

              the only thing the vaccine does is to protect you from getting very ill yourself. it doesn’t protect you from speading it, or from contracting it.

              we’ll talk again when those sports gatherings will result in breakthroughs, and see who you’re going to blame then for public safety, and how effective this vaccine is.

              Liked by 2 people

            9. Wow.

              Okay, three ways to come at this failure to understand that you demonstrate with such a comment. That you disagree with this statement is to be expected, so…

              The first is to point out you are not using good information to inform this opinion. That’s too much work for me and I doubt it would have any bearing whatsoever.

              The second is to convince you to start over as if you have no opinion one way or the other and fill in this ignorance with your own effort. That’s probably too much work for you and I doubt you’d only use confirmation bias anyway.

              The third is to get you to look at the facts on the ground and engage your brain with a mystery: why are most positive cases directly related to unvaccinated carriers and why do the unvaccinated overwhelmingly occupy ICU and hospital beds for the very worst symptoms? There’s a good reason for these international yet consistent patterns. Let’s see if you can find them.

              Finally, you may want to pop over to Nan’s site and see a graphic representation of how vaccinations alter the spread pattern. That reason alone should be sufficient to anyone who gives a damn about anyone else. But hey, your motivation is your own…

              Liked by 1 person

            10. fair. i guess i deserved that.

              i follow my own unconventional protocols. protocols that have have been supressed by media while pushing the vaccines as the ONLY therapy against covid. why that is?? makes one wonder.

              you might want to take a look at this meta data (this is just one example)
              the things they never tell us.

              https://ivmmeta.com/

              Liked by 1 person

            11. The latest info I have on Ivermectin is that it has no control study and suffers from a whole range of significant problems for the data collected. It may be effective and may be the case in many ways, but until GOOD info is collected under rigorous peer review, this treatment is not medically sound. In comparison, vaccination has the largest international comparative data set ever assembled and is HIGHLY effective. Every medical organization IN THE WORLD agrees and so it has reached medical consensus. This is not a small achievement but a staggering one.

              Liked by 1 person

            12. you did not click on the link, did you tildeb?

              what do you think of this trial?

              Biber et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2021.05.31.21258081 (results 2/12/21) (Preprint)
              Favorable outcome on viral load and culture viability using Ivermectin in early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with mild COVID-19, A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial.

              Liked by 1 person

            13. I am not questioning what the various graphs show because I am not an expert on quality of how the data was collected. But there are many organizations that are, that do look at all incoming information and assess them with experts. Here’s the meta data on just this with the important bits bolded by me:

              “Different websites (such as https://ivmmeta.com/, https://c19ivermectin.com/, https://tratamientotemprano.org/estudios-ivermectina/, among others) have conducted meta-analyses with ivermectin studies, showing unpublished colourful forest plots which rapidly gained public acknowledgement and were disseminated via social media, without following any methodological or report guidelines. These websites do not include protocol registration with methods, search strategies, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of the included studies nor the certainty of the evidence of the pooled estimates. Prospective registration of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis protocols is a key feature for providing transparency in the review process and ensuring protection against reporting biases, by revealing differences between the methods or outcomes reported in the published review and those planned in the registered protocol. These websites show pooled estimates suggesting significant benefits with ivermectin, which has resulted in confusion for clinicians, patients and even decision-makers. This is usually a problem when performing meta-analyses which are not based in rigorous systematic reviews, often leading to spread spurious or fallacious findings.

              In other words, don’t be fooled by colorful graphs that supposedly show data contrary to medical consensus as if equivalent to the consensus. If Ivermectin did as advertised, our medical people would be ALL OVER THIS and getting it fast tracked to the general public. But that simply is not the case.

              Liked by 2 people

            14. The government forcing people to take medications that they do not want is indeed an infringement on our freedom. I am fully vaccinated and I am very pro vaccine. But I am at least sensitive to the fact that some people may weigh the risks differently than I do. People should be free to live their life by their own calculation of risk and reward unless the weight is very heavy on the side of safety of others. The science suggests that people who are vaccinated have little risk of dying from COVID even if those around them are not vaccinated. So the weight required for the government to force people to take medications they do not want is simply not there. Mortality at 33% as with small pox – ok.
              This number is not even close to for the government to force people to take medicine they don’t want.
              https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html

              Liked by 3 people

            15. Of course, freedom to live one’s life as they choose is well and good — except when it comes to women and their CHOICE about a certain procedure.

              Liked by 1 person

            16. Because the selfish idiocy has cost so much and continues to do so. There is already policy discussions in Canada that all children must receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations along with all other mandatory childhood vaccinations when and if final approval is granted.

              Like

            17. But it’s not personal: it’s a risk to the entire society in every way imaginable. Your take is that it’s only personal and it’s not. That’s what a pandemic infectious disease means, people get infected FROM other people. If there is an easy and safe way to impede this, it is unethical to NOT do so. That’s why the US has lost not just those who died from Covid dozens of times at higher rate than so many other countries with responsible governments but has left a very wide swath of suffering in the name of ‘freedom’ for the few. This is exactly backwards.

              Like

            18. tildeb, what is unethical is that the government has chosen the treatment for us and we are left with no choice but to comply. now nurses are losing their jobs for not complying. last month they were calling them ‘heroes’.

              in fact there are other options to combat this virus and numerous countries around the world have successfully used these methods (check my link, it has pictures of Covid treatment packages sold in Brazil, Bolivia, India, Ecuador, Mexico, Thailand, USA, Ukraine, and others). the studies are there, they are peered reviewed. they are legit.

              but we never hear about that on the news. why? where is the integrity here?
              and how can i trust a government or a treatment that hides these things from us?? i would take the vaccine gladly, if i was presented with all my options equally.

              the whole thing stinks, tildeb.

              Liked by 2 people

            19. If ALL the facts were known about ALL the various and sundry “government” actions, we would not be able to breathe for the “stink.”

              Liked by 3 people

            20. haha! indeed. i heard there was a time (ancient times) when the rulers actually cared for the people. they were brave and noble.
              they call our times the ‘age of darkeness’- kali yuga, the age of “quarrel and hypocrisy”, where greed and falsity dominate.

              Liked by 1 person

            21. No I am not saying it is only personal. I am saying it is a balance that needs to be struck. If you don’t get the flu vaccine you might transmit the flu to others and people actually do die from the flu.

              But we do not say therefore the government can force everyone to take a flu vaccine even if they don’t want to.
              https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

              People who are vaccinated for covid seem less likely to die from covid than a typical year of the flu. So the data does not support the government forcibly vaccinating everyone in order to protect people. This has much more to do with manufacturing a crisis in order to use it for a political power grab by our government.

              I think the US has lost more per capita to covid than other countries (that actually track covid deaths in a similar way) because we happen to have several of the comorbidities that make covid more dangerous – Such as diabetes, obesity etc.
              https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/prevalence-maps.html#overall

              Like

            22. The US death rate is about 8 times higher than the rest of the world. Sure, you can believe it’s all about comorbidities but the rate does not align. You’d knoow this if you weren’t so willing to be gullible. Of course, you don;t see it this way because suckers never do.

              What you are doing is coming up with beliefs to justify anti-vax sentiment and then filling that desire with whatever notions, distortions, ideas, misinformation and disinformation you can find that seems to do the job. This is the same tactic, the same rationalization, the same methods, used by creationists to ‘question’ evolutionary theory, the same tactic used by Republicans to ‘warn’ people about any democratic – read ‘socialist’ – legislation, the same tactic used by oil and gas energy consortiums to doubt climate science, the same tactic used by any and all successful woo-miesters to sell bullshit to the gullible. It’s as old as time and just as tedious because it’s never ending. No matter what facts and compelling evidence are brought forward to counter the bullshit, the next one is waiting to be trotted out. That’s how these bad ideas continue to have life: by those who have some motive other than respecting what’s probably true.

              Like

            23. “The US death rate is about 8 times higher than the rest of the world. Sure, you can believe it’s all about comorbidities but the rate does not align. You’d knoow this if you weren’t so willing to be gullible. Of course, you don;t see it this way because suckers never do.”

              Are you surprised that the US death per capita is fairly well in line with advanced countries that have the technology to detect covid and governments that are honest enough to give the break down? Do you really trust China and Russia are giving you accurate numbers with the same methodology we use?

              “What you are doing is coming up with beliefs to justify anti-vax sentiment and then filling that desire with whatever notions, distortions, ideas, misinformation and disinformation you can find that seems to do the job.”

              No quite the opposite. I am very pro vaccine when it comes to covid. Although I will admit we can not be sure of all the possible side effects of the vaccine I would wager they are less than the side effects of getting covid – especially a bad case of it. I have strongly encouraged everyone I know to get the vaccine.

              I am also pointing out that if you get the vaccine you have very low risk of dying from covid. That is why I think it should be left to people to choose. I am vaccinated as is my family if others want to choose not to vaccinate I disagree with their decision but it is their own life and their choice how they want to weigh those risks. I strongly believe in the vaccine’s effectiveness so I do feel the vaccinated need to be overly concerned about the unvaccinated.

              You are the one that seems to be saying that people who are vaccinated need to be worried. If you and those who got the vaccine are protected then why are you so interested in having the government force people to take medicine they do not want? If it is for their own good ok, but again that is part of living in a free society. It was for their own good that many European countries had laws forcing people to be one religion or another. But in the US we say people can make their own choices about how they will live their own life and how they weigh the risks and benefits. Maybe in Canada it is different I don’t know or much care.

              “This is the same tactic, the same rationalization, the same methods, used by creationists to ‘question’ evolutionary theory, the same tactic used by Republicans to ‘warn’ people about any democratic – read ‘socialist’ – legislation, the same tactic used by oil and gas energy consortiums to doubt climate science, the same tactic used by any and all successful woo-miesters to sell bullshit to the gullible. It’s as old as time and just as tedious because it’s never ending. No matter what facts and compelling evidence are brought forward to counter the bullshit, the next one is waiting to be trotted out. That’s how these bad ideas continue to have life: by those who have some motive other than respecting what’s probably true.”

              Your view is clear. You think it is the government’s job to tell everyone what to think. And yes I do in fact very strongly disagree with that view. I have absolutely no interest in having Trump or Biden tell me how I have to think – thank you very much.

              I do not believe in creationism nor do I believe in evolution that was unguided by God. But I do very strongly believe the federal government should not be telling everyone what to believe.

              You don’t seem to understand something. If you give the Federal government the power over your life they will have that power whether you think the government is the good guy or the bad guy. Most Americans have a visceral understanding of this – even though they often are happy to have their team use government power to cram down their own agendas on others. But in other countries it seems this understanding is almost completely lacking. Let people think what they want to think and live the life they want to live unless the government absolutely must step in. But if you set up principles where the government can step in all the time you are opening the door for the bad guys too.

              Liked by 1 person

            24. The mistake you keep making – and the same tactic used by oil and gas companies to great effect, to those who don’t want to recognize climate change, to those who want to continue to believe some agency of Oogity Boogity created us in some way to make us oh-so-special – is ton misidentify the problem and then undermine the credibility of those who point this out. The mistake is believing the threat the virus presents is personal and so all approaches to addressing this rightly belong to the individual to choose.

              This is factually wrong.

              The threat is PUBLIC. And so to deal with the threat MEANS a public approach is NECESSARY.

              You then create and believe in the fiction that this understanding and solutions associated with this understanding are therefore totalitarian, that anyone who understands the real problem are wanting to take over the lives of everyone and eliminate all freedoms and liberties. It’s such a typical and grossly naïve perspective that it ends up promoting and causing the problem to do great harm to EVERYONE. That is what you are doing hidden behind platitudes – similarly believed as virtuous, no doubt – about vaccinations.

              Liked by 1 person

            25. Ron:
              “And for the record: I’m not a Trump supporter, nor a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor a Constitutionalist (though I agree with the principles espoused in the DOI), nor a Libertarian (in the political sense).

              At heart, I’m an anarchist — in the strict dictionary sense (i.e., “a person who advocates the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperation”)”

              If someone kills someone in your family I am not sure they will voluntarily cooperate with social system. If you say society will nevertheless arrest the murderer whether or not he cooperates then how is that not a government? Is it that the societal rules are not decided by democratic process but some other process?

              I guess I don’t understand why people seem to jump from the view that the state should control everything from what we think to what medicine we take to how much we can be paid for something we do for someone else, all the way to anarchy.

              I mean what is wrong with a view that government should have some very limited functions like protecting all citizens from violence but we should keep it in check so people can by and large live and think how they like?

              Liked by 1 person

            26. I didn’t jump to that view, so much as transition into it as a consequence of reading and reflecting upon all the various forms of government that have been tried throughout history.

              And questions like “who will protect us against the uncivilized members of society in the absence of a formal government” strike me as an odd argument in favor of government given their demonstrated failure to protect us against such elements. In fact, the historical record shows that governments have killed more people than the criminals they were instituted to protect us from.

              Liked by 1 person

        1. Tildeb if you are endorsing this as a well respected constitutional expert, I would suspect any of your motives here.
          I know the articles are a
          little long, but this guy is an extremist nut and it’s in his own words.
          The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”—Karl Marx
          Sort of reminded me of that inspirational quote.

          Like

          1. Perhaps it’s because I’m Canadian that I see the unreasonable libertarian streak behind the anti-vax, anti-mask, anti social-whatever attitude as the extreme and not the notion of a regulating role of government for the common good. I thought this perspective was articulated well by Vermeule because this is what grown up nations do: their voters tend to demand governments by the people are for the people and not a vehicle to be used by a few individuals to gain power over the many. This is a position being articulated by this Harvard law prof and not being presented as a call for deification of the speaker.

            So look at the tactic Ron uses here, Jim: it’s fundamental to extremists of all stripes and political/religious leanings. Rather than deal with the issue being raised, he goes after the speaker to vilify the character and thereby avoid the argument. Sound familiar? It should. This tactic is Trump’s entire intellectual arsenal. It is the core of cancel culture. It is the heart of critical theory and the bludgeon used against those who think dividing people by race might not be a good idea to combat racism. Like those extremists, this is the way Ron argues. It is confirmation bias hard at work and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with honest dialogue or showing any ability to shape an opinion with better information.

            How we think determines what we think. Ron is exhibiting very poor thinking skills here… and you’re eating it up.

            Like

            1. I’m not eating it up. I give points for any good point.
              Vermeule’s goal is totalitarian (catholic) theocracy. And to get there can use the same word shuffling that “grown up nations” use to flatline the minds of its constituents with Janteloven.
              I think this highly successful oddity of the USA still creates too much foreign envy, like that’s a problem. I know your experience with the USA is from books and news, but that ain’t America. We may have our inner battles going on, but in the struggle is excellence and innovation—and the real america is talking with your neighbors. The biggest problem in the world is very few have developed immunity to social media. I’m sure pfizer can fix that.

              Like

            2. Oh, and I have family in five states including both Democrat and Republican supporters. I am pleased all have been double vaccinated because none are idiots.

              Like

            3. One thing is absolutely certain. Someone like Vermeule is 100% agenda driven and calculated to that point. You may as well quote some really good Marxist philosophy to bolster your vaccination stance. Curious if you really admire this guy or if you quote mined a particular point?
              “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.”Karl Marx.
              This is a tactic used to garner supporters even though those same supporters differ 180° from the character. Like trump

              Like

            4. And for the record: I’m not a Trump supporter, nor a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor a Constitutionalist (though I agree with the principles espoused in the DOI), nor a Libertarian (in the political sense).

              At heart, I’m an anarchist — in the strict dictionary sense (i.e., “a person who advocates the abolition of government and a social system based on voluntary cooperation”)

              Liked by 1 person

            5. Btw, you and others discredited my comments on viral mutations simply because the Dr new Steve Bannon, even though it was backed by other sources. Your respected constitutional expert deserves no less.

              Like

            6. And your reference was criticized not because of Malone’s character but because his anti-vaccination stance and fear mongering about this issue is based very much on cherry picked data that simply does not withstand scrutiny.

              Like

        2. It’s a reflection of his theocratic and authoritarian mindset. From the essay you quoted:

          In a paradoxical sense, these difficult pragmatic questions are actually easiest for the subjects of the law. I do not have to decide such questions, and I am duty bound — as are we all — to respect the commands of those in authority charged with deciding them, short of flagrant arbitrariness. My first-order judgments may seem sound to me (why wouldn’t they?), but I ought to reflect that my opinions, as such, are insufficient grounds for overriding the presumptively reasonable judgments of the responsible authorities. Especially in an emergency, the individual has no “right” to quarrel with the prudential judgments made by those charged with care of the community, within the scope of their jurisdiction, so long as those judgments are basically rational and in service of the common good.

          https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/vaccine-mandates-the-end-of-covid

          IOW, Don’t think for yourself; just follow orders. This is the thinking that’s informed every totalitarian regime that’s ever existed. screed of a statist and collectivist. The constitutional signers must be rolling over in their graves.

          As to this chimera called the “common good” — whose vision of this “common good” are we going to run with? Mine? Yours? Jim’s? The Pope’s? The Southern Baptist’s? The Progressive Left’s? The Communist’s? Hitler’s? Kim Jong-un’s?

          Liked by 1 person

            1. That’s fine, Ron. Stay true to your anarchist principles then and stop using the regulated public domain or any regulated public services. Should be simple for someone with your elevated character… you know, the one that judges all others as insufficient to regulate you but allows you to determine all others are stepping out of line to judge you. See the problem here?

              Liked by 1 person

            2. The only problem I see is the anti-constitutional thesis being promulgated by a constitutional law professor from Harvard, and your endorsement of those ideas. Care to address that issue? Or will you continue to make this a conversation about me?

              Liked by 1 person

            3. It’s not an anti-constitutional thesis, Ron. It is a perspective that I think differentiates between a libertarian and more socialized one reflected by all other liberal democracies that take onboard the same fundamental principles of individual autonomy in law but also a recognized social responsibility. I mention being Canadian because this allows me to compare and contrast various socialized aspects between the two countries that have profound impacts on elevating quality of life for all citizens… such as socialized medicine. A strict libertarian approach will not allow any tide to raise all boats but insists masses of under-insured people will maintain incredible inequity based on personal finances… as if this is a Constitutionally approved economic issue when it so patently is a medical issue, for example! And the same libertarian framing is used in all kinds of ways to maintain institutionalized inequality, not least of which is an evolved political system that favours only the economically advantaged class! Too much personal freedom harms the very real social fabric, meaning what brings people together is overwhelmed by aspects that divide people. When a system of governing relies on such divisions to allow the economically advantaged to flourish, what results is dysfunction. This is often referred to as a zero sum game, where ‘winning’ depends on others ‘losing’. It’s not the only model.

              So when I see the Constitution being used as if only this libertarian perspective is valid and all others are an ‘attack’ on it, I understand what’s being lost, namely, accepting some measure of social responsibility to the Other and appreciating why social cohesion matters for the benefit of all individuals that constitute it. That loss of cohesion and loss of respect for social responsibility is the cost all of us pay when the metric is solely economics (read Constitutional here) and one that I think unnecessarily harms real people in real life… especially during a pandemic when we look at the real costs of having a significant minority refuse to see vaccinations as a civic duty. Understanding that individual freedoms and rights in law only come about through social cohesion (which is what Vermeule (sp?) is talking about) is a fundamental difference in perspective that I thought was a contribution to considering this ethical matter of mandated vaccinations raised by the OP.

              Like

            4. elevating quality of life for all citizens… such as socialized medicine”
              You may not have noticed, but in Canada’s case this has only lowered the bar. Like socialism typically does. It is the diversity in America that makes it great. It makes it a challenge as well. If socialista medicina is so superior, why do Canadians spent $700 million on health care abroad and rising? The wait is too great.

              Like

            5. If one assumes the bar is lower to begin with, then it’s pretty easy to find data to support that assumption. Things like ‘wait lists’ and so on.

              But here’s the thing, Jim. It is very rare that any Canadian citizen goes bankrupt when their health goes to shit. Just this week, for example, a drug therapy for cystic fibrosis was approved (~$300,00 per patient per year). It is very rare that someone is denied any procedure (usually related to pain) that improves quality of life. There’s actually a really good reason why Canadians hold socialized medicine as the number one public policy and the best thing about being Canadian. Governments that fail to appreciate just how highly Canadians endorse this policy tend to get wiped out in elections. (Just this past summer, a liberal provincial government fell for just this reason.)

              So when we see healthcare attached to stuff like insurance companies and employers holding the economic strings rather than medical practitioners serving what they deem to be a need, we don’t hold that as a ‘lowering’ of this bar even though many data points will show lower ranking for this, that, and the other thing compared to other places. And yes, because many procedures are waitlisted, more affluent Canadians will get treatment elsewhere faster… not necessarily better.

              Canada is a huge country with a very diverse population in every meaningful way and we know every provincial government is trying to find some way to meet these medical needs. No one I know has ever NOT gotten excellent healthcare even if it has caused a certain amount of inconvenience like these data points reveal. Like the weather, however, Canadians complain all the time about healthcare but, when push comes to shove, we want it no other way… except better. If this were not the common denominator – this tumultuous love affair with universal healthcare for every single Canadian regardless of preconditions or wealth status – then it wouldn’t be such a point of pride from coast to coast to coast. I call a doctor, get seen, get referred to a specialist, get seen, get a procedure, get recovery therapy, continue on and receive no bill. It’s all about healthcare and not these other concerns.

              And now with a minority government having to work with other political parties to get enough votes to pass legislation we’re looking at developing a universal no cost drug plan. Dentistry is also emerging in the target reticule. And I mention this because all these social policies rarely come from the political majority but are part and parcel of political parties making concessions to others in exchange for voting support to keep political power. That’s how we got most of our social ‘safety net’ policies now the law of the land and why we saw nothing like the poverty caused by business shutdowns during Covid because every Canadian was covered by this same net. Sure, it’s socialized, but it really does create an extremely strong public cohesion that ranks at or near the top in what Canadians feel defines this national identity. To consider this as a lowering of the bar would receive a puzzled look from most Canadians not addicted to Fox News.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. I never watch the news. 15 years now without tv.
              I appreciate your POV and will consider all the comments.
              I wonder if Canada would ever consider the Panamanian structure? It’s both public and private (docs are required to put time in public hospitals) very low taxes (really low to none) and the countries national resource (panama canal) funds most of the social services of the country. Cost $1 to go to the ER and $20 if you’re admitted. My daughter was in picu for 4 days with staicus athsmatus and it cost $20.
              Dental Fillings are about $25 and a private physician runs about $35. The majority have no health insurance (the real elephant in the room) of any kind and the red tape is minimal.
              It’s funny, our natural resources go to the highest bidder for corporate profit while I feel the revenue from that could easily fund the US healthcare system without tax, insurance, or copays. It’s the best scenario I can think of. You guys get taxed to hell for what you have and it’s unnecessary with all the resources you have.

              Like

            7. That’s a common assumption about taxes being higher to pay for public healthcare and it is partially true. I say ‘partially’ because we have a different tax system and distribution made more complex by provincial differences as well. But the data I saw from 2019 showed less than a 10% difference in provincial taxation compared to a wage earner from a comparable state. Direct federal taxes are lower but we have a national goods and services tax which is higher. We also have vastly different provincial taxes and significant differences in municipalities that, by law, cannot run deficits whereas provinces can. On average, the typical Canadian pays a per capita tax that looks higher than the American average but is actually lower when the currency rate is factored in. I know: complex but not all that much different.

              So it’s complex because only a portion of expenditure goes to healthcare but the savings in other publicly funded areas is also lower because many problems are handled by adequate health services. So it’s really hard to accurately compare.

              What is true is that every Canadian has full access in principle to a national standard of healthcare here regardless of income. But what is also true is that in practice this isn’t always the case. Health care – including seniors care, which is ballooning just as the average age of death is also rising as well as all the complex medical care that occurs with an aging population – is always a work in progress and different provinces – which are the responsible parties for providing health care – use different funding formulas and different areas of concentrated expenditures. And it also involves different areas of public expenditure like universities and the military and Indigenous Affairs that also make significant contributions in everything from research to clinical practices to meeting the needs of a sparsely populated but huge geographical area subject to extreme climate. And we have first class medical expertise and training and research. With certain drugs (like insulin that a few of your readers may appreciate) we purchase nationally and have a great deal of clout with various drug companies with guaranteed sales that revert by schedule to generic supply and use this in foreign policy to provide drugs and vaccines and health programs to countries south of the equator for a fraction of the original cost with major impact for millions who might otherwise have zero access.

              Whereas some members of my American family are well insured, some are not. And it seems to me that employers use health care insurance as a way to suppress wages and enforce a position of advantage over workers, which seems to me to be something akin to economic blackmail in the name of ‘free’ market medicine. It’s not some insurance agent deciding what is and is not covered but family doctors based on medical need. Waitlists for, say, hip replacements do not stop anyone who needs a procedure for life or limb from being first in line.

              And this why the situation today in Alberta is so shocking for all of Canada in that transplant patients with scheduled life saving surgeries are being cancelled for a lack of ICU specialized staff. This is a huge deal here because it’s a first and it’s the canary in the coal mine to demonstrate just how desperate treating unvaccinated Covid patients has become.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. I pretty sure if it ever came up for a vote I’d say yes. This is an ongoing stressful situation on average which ir a precursor to poor health in general. Even a poor health care system is probably better overall health. With health, autos, home insurances I’m at about $1300/month. And I’ve been to the doctor twice in five years and had a copay ($20) to boot.

              Like

            9. Here’s a link to the section of the United States Constitution enumerating the powers granted to Congress:

              https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-8/

              In it, I find no mention of “socialized medicine” (or “socialized” anything, for that matter) or vaccine mandates, or “raising the (financial) tide of all boats” or eliminating “institutionalized inequality” but if you can find such clauses, please point them out.

              Liked by 1 person

    4. You Referenced — “The common good is itself the highest good of individuals.”

      My Response — I agree.

      BUT

      Who determines what the common good is?

      Texas banned abortions.

      Is it the “common good” that thousands of children will no longer be denied life?

      OR

      Would it be the “common good” that women do not lose the right to control how their body is used and when their life is put in danger?

      What is the “common good” that gets control of the outcome?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Who determines what the common good is?” asks Lander7.

        Really good question. Not easy to answer simply.

        To answer it requires an understanding of WHAT the common good is so that we can see WHO is responsible for implementing it… depending on the issue at hand.

        The good is ‘common’ if it is both nonrivalrous and nonexcludable. What this means is that the goods or service offered to you do not reduce anything to me (we are not rivals) and the goods or service offered excludes no one. The ‘good’ aspect means it fulfills a relational obligation all of us share to care for certain interests. Think education, police protection, relative safety, and so on. These depend on everyone caring about the particular interest, which justifies using public institutions to provide them.

        Health falls directly under the common good. And epidemics directly threaten the health of everyone everywhere. So it becomes a matter of public health concern to care about the interest we share in addressing threats to all of us. The common good of health is at risk. This virus is very much a threat to all of us so it falls under public interest to address.

        Who does this?

        Well, to avoid rivalry and exclusion, by legislation we assign this responsibility to specific agencies and the agents who direct them. These vary from country to country. In Canada, this legislation is directed to empower the appointed Chief Medical Officer (whose appointment passes the membership by the College of Physicians) who then organizes direction of action to local medical officers (usually by county and municipality). Once this legislated responsibility is activated, the Chief Medical Officer has full authority on how to address the threat. He or she is the agent who determines actions to address the threat to the common good of health.

        Advice is given by the nationally appointed Chief Public Health Officer. Because this power used by so few is so sweeping (each Officer can order entire governments to heed his or her decisions), it must come with hard dates within a framework of time (usually 2 month maximum). Legislated voting by elected members of parliaments must approve any kind of extensions. There are other checks and balances in the legislation but, in a nutshell, during a pandemic the Chief Medical Officer (in consultation with various political, economic, and military ‘tables’ of interested and affected parties) rules on any and all measures that affect achieving the common good, namely the elimination of the health threat all of us face.

        Does that help clarify at all?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You Asked — “Does that help clarify at all?”

          My Response — It does, thanks.

          From your response it would appear that the concept of a, “common good”, is limited in it’s use to just a small subset of human challenges or conflicts. The majority of issues appear to be out of it’s reach.

          Example: Texas banned abortions

          You Stated:
          “The good is ‘common’ if it is both non-rivalrous and nonexcludable”
          “The ‘good’ aspect means it fulfills a relational obligation all of us share to care for certain interests”

          So it doesn’t work because:
          Texas banned abortions are rivalrous between the health of the child and the health of the mother.
          Texas banned abortions are not shared by all of us since only women can have children.

          There is also some dissonance in the theory of, “common good”.

          For instance you Stated: “Health falls directly under the common good.”

          But not the health of the woman who is pregnant since, (in Texas), she is being forced to have a baby.

          The “common good” also seems to be biased to certain groups.

          You Stated — “to avoid rivalry and exclusion, by legislation we assign this responsibility to specific agencies and the agents who direct them.”

          So in Texas that would be the Extreme Right.

          I like the idea of a, “common good”, but I live in an uncommon world.

          What if we embraced a new concept, “Relational Suffering”?

          Lets say if a woman is forced to give birth then the following three things happen.

          1) The man who got her pregnant must donate an organ.
          2) The state must pay all of her medical bills until the child is the age of 18.
          3) And if she dies giving birth so does the man who got her pregnant.

          OR

          She can have an abortion if she wants since it’s her body.

          Just a thought

          Like

  8. Here is an explanation about the evolutionary aspect of the use of effective vaccines. Please notice that vaccinations do not cause the rise of variants; rather, it is from the pool of the unvaccinated that new variants arise. The takeaway:

    The unvaccianted cause successful mutations and new variants to arise.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. When we’re talking evolution, we’re talking about fitness, which means slight changes in genetics that offer an advantage through successful reproduction. If you think about this way, you can see vaccinations operate to reduce fitness, reduce reproductive success because of increased effectiveness of immune response. In other words, it’s harder for viruses to infect hosts and makes it less likely the overpower the immune response.

        But when you look at the available pool for viruses like the SARS-CoV-2 to infect and spread, it makes sense the unvaccinated offer a better vehicle. So this is why variants of concern arise from the unvaccinated and then spread through the vaccinated if and only if they have mutated enough for the increased immunity to be ineffective.

        So it’s simply not true that vaccinations cause mutations or cause variants to arise; rather, vaccinations like naturally produced immunity (like after an infection has been beaten by the immune response) put up a barrier that when finally breached can funnel only a very strong variant – one that does not encounter significant immune responses – to then arise.

        This is why the effectiveness of mass vaccination really is significantly dependent on widespread rather than piecemeal distribution; when you can massively shrink the pool of the unvaccinated, the chances for the remainder cases to produce a variant of concern is thereby drastically reduced. This is one of the reasons why polio has been almost eradicated, why smallpox was eradicated, why we don’t have massive outbreaks of diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), Haemophilus influenzae type B (Hib), rotavirus, hepatitis B, measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, pneumococcal and meningococcal diseases, and human papillomavirus virus (HPV). Vaccinations work to reduce the rise of variants of concern. And this why mandatory vaccinations for children is public health policy, not because I think so or some pharmaceutical company is making money or there’s some grand conspiracy by government. Mandatory vaccination programs have worked to reduce and even eliminate what were once common diseases. The same is potentially true for the virus that produces Covid: if we can get more people vaccinated, we all benefit. The more intransigent people get about refusing to get vaccinated, the higher the risk for all of us.

        Like

        1. You’re trying to tell me that a mass vaccination of the entire planet will have no untoward affect on the population. I don’t think anyone has any idea what it will eventually do. You can’t even use anti microbial soap without repercussions. It does seem the medical community is being used as a guinea pig though, planned since last December.
          The most immediate question is whether vaccines
          12 work as expected. We’re planning a prospective study
          13 among healthcare workers”
          Section 177
          12/10/2020
          I know you don’t like conspiracy nor do I. But you don’t know what you don’t know. This rollout to healthcare was planned months ahead of time.
          https://www.fda.gov/media/144859/download?fbclid=IwAR2uywteXWQK_tb_VwjH2oVbOqW1zqPvd78ApDaOiREq_eZ7aLvvEQV4TI8

          Like

          1. It’s my understanding that the chemistry is pretty straightforward. The mRNA vaccine dissipates entirely within 3 weeks, meaning no residual particles. So to presume it has some long lasting chemical effects requires some evidence of a chemical change to the body. What is retained is an immune recognition of the protein spike. That’s it.

            I also know there are different kinds of immune responses involving different kinds of cells (like the T cells). I understand the immune response after infection involves several kinds of these cells so I can’t speak to that. Nor can I speak to the various serums used for AZ and other ‘sino’ vaccines. But I think I have a pretty good grasp on the mRNA and why some long term effect is highly unlikely just because of how it operates and then metabolizes. Another way of thinking about it is what kind of side effects are emerging from hundred of millions of doses and what is being studied in this regard. And that evidence is lacking in that nothing is emerging when it should have if then proposition had merit. It’s like creationism in this regard: where there should be evidence if the proposition were true or even remotely likely, it is comprehensively lacking.

            Remember, this isn’t an American issue; it is international and many first world countries have excellent medical services that would raise an alarm if anything like what you’re suggesting had some evidence to back it up. That, too, is lacking.

            So there’s no reason to suspect some nefarious long term effects nor any reason to suspect these vaccines are comparably dangerous to the well known, widely researched, undisputable danger SARS-CoV-2 in all its variants present. Vaccines are the only defense we have – other than hoping our natural immunity will keep the casualty list lower – against many, many kinds of viruses. Just a comparison we do know, in the US more people have now died from Covid even in the presence of a distributed vaccine than known from the 1919 ‘Spanish Flu’ pandemic. Long term effects requires long term life as a starting point, and that possibility has been removed from over 650,000 unvaccinated Americans.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Dru West is a patient advocate and she raises these questions prior to the emergency vaccine release (notice the date, December 2020). She believes not enough evidence has been accumulated to approve. That’s fine.

              Emergency approval was based on more real world data than any other drug. Ever. But still, approval did not come until July when the full application and all its accumulated evidence from all sources were vetted by the FDA in the States. The same was done throughout the Western world by various health agencies. All granted full approval. Dru’s concerns were met by the massive accumulation of real world data. Again, we know the scope of harm Covid can inflict so the question becomes is this harm equivalent to the accumulated evidence for harm from the vaccine. And it’s not. To a factor of many millions. In other words, harm from the vaccine is millions of times less harmful than the harm produced by Covid to the same population.

              Like

            2. To a factor of many millions. In other words, harm from the vaccine is millions of times less harmful than the harm produced by Covid to the same population”
              How can anyone even know what is complication by vaccination or comorbidity with everyone vaccinated? They certainly 1/2 the numbers at will from the deaths by vaccination. Exempt from prosecution and people now dying after the shot, there’s no way to know that without a sample of unvaccinated. I guess it’s all just coincidence and quickly handwaved by the VAERS.
              It’s easy to treat the masses like cattle (for their own good of course) until someone you care about has a life changing reaction.

              Like

            3. It was exactly the same argument against the polio vaccine, Jim. It was the same argument against all the one’s previously listed. Prior to 2011 (from the Canadian Coalition for Immunization Awareness and Promotion):

              Rubella: 69,000 cases compared to 9

              Polio: 20,000 cases compared to 0

              Mumps: 52,000 cases compared to 32

              Measles: 300,000 cases compared to 7

              Diptheria: 9,000 cases compared to 1

              Vaccinations work. Letting a disease run rampant out of some unrealized fear is not good policy nor good thinking. It’s fear mongering. Let the evidence speak.

              Liked by 3 people

            4. Four words that killed the entire plan— “do your own research”. It was a lot easier pre-internet when basically people just trusted their Dr, or just got in line in the gym like when I was in school.

              Like

  9. Yes, WAVE was the word I referred to — TWICE — in my comment. According to you, Israel (which vaccinated early) should not be having any more WAVES . . . but they are now heading into their FOURTH, so you’re opinion is disconfirmed by the DATA released by Israel.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/sep/18/doctors-caring-unvaccinated-covid-patients

    “Medicine is based on science and experts. I don’t know when expert opinion or expert knowledge took a backseat to politics”

    “Moral injury occurs when the nurse or doctor feels that, ‘The patients I’ve dedicated my life to treating are now here because of their own negligence and now they’re imposing upon me and my team to treat them, while also exposing us to continued danger from this virus.’”

    “That’s what makes this wave of the pandemic so hard to watch, because we have a vaccine and we know that it works.”

    ” … a California-based infectious disease doctor, can’t help but feel angry at patients that are life-threateningly ill from Covid-19 but could have avoided their illness by taking the vaccine.”

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I wonder how it would go over if a nurse or doctor made a public statement accusing her AIDS, or diabetes, or high blood pressure, or lung cancer patients of personal negligence for their condition.

      Like

      1. As seems to be your practice, Ron, because you’re so convinced this whole virus thing is just a fluke, you miss the point entirely …

        Like

            1. It gets frustrating having highly trained medical healthcare workers leaving the profession because their patients don’t care. It’s frustrating to have these gits force others to suffer and die. Shame is a very very very small price to pay for their idiocy.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. I can see it now:

              You have AIDs Dave. Guess you shoulda used protection, huh?

              Hey Carl! You wouldn’t have chronic emphysema if you’d stopped smoking thirty years ago.

              Well Mary, it’s like this: you wouldn’t need a double bypass if you’d exercised more and ate less Krispy Kreme donuts.

              You want me to mend your broken bones? Who forced you to climb that rickety ladder, George?

              Like

            3. None of those are indicative of what’s going on today. Today I heard an ICU nurse say she’s sick and tired to death of having to call family members of unvaccinated people EVER DAY with terrible news. She has to go through demonstrators EVERY DAY. She has to listen to the ignorant and stupid and malicious who spread false information and doubt about vaccinations. You can claim membership, Ron, in doing your small but malicious part to drive such people out of hospitals and away from being able to sustain the compassion needed to do the job. You.

              Like

            4. People die in hospitals every day, so informing someone of their loved one’s passing goes with the territory.

              As to your accusations: I’ve spread no misinformation. I’ve simply presented the data released by the CDC and other health bodies. Nor have I ever told anyone not to get the vaccines — I’ve merely cited the reasons why I won’t be getting them. What others choose to do is up to them. I’m pro-choice all the way.

              Liked by 1 person

            5. I think our government handled the entire thing about as clueless to human nature as it could have been handled.
              Coercion is the last straw for for many, who now will refuse vaccination on principle.
              I used to run cattle with a guy who liked to put a rope out there any time he could. He never learned the nuances of herd behavior. They’ll come around if you just leave ‘em alone. I can’t count the times, but those times he failed to get a rope on em, at the end of the day all the cows were at the corral. Even the ones that pissed him off.

              Like

            6. I don’t think that analogy works… Although I understand what you’re saying. In the US right now you just have a bunch of fucking wankers taking pleasure in being politically-motivated nuts.

              Any one of them could go down to a graveyard and count all the gravestones for babies and children before, say, the 1950’s, and then count all the gravestones for babies and children after 1950.

              Liked by 2 people

            7. Jim, the wankers are drinking horse de-wormer.

              These are not rational people.

              Horse-dewormer…. Now think about how the rest of the world is viewing the US right now.

              Liked by 1 person

            8. Victims of misinformation. There are a slew of health care workers refusing too. Mostly because of the way it was handled.
              Every denier should watch the video

              Liked by 2 people

            9. Just called into Twiter, and this was the first tweet:

              My Grandma passed away this morning from COVID.
              And while I am devastated, I’m more pissed off than anything.
              She wasn’t vaccinated. Why? Because she believed all of the right wing conspiracy bullshit on Fox.
              Their fucking lies are KILLING people. They deserve to be in prison.

              Liked by 3 people

            10. Easy blame game. It’s those politicians. But not accurate. Sure, many of his points are right on but many are not. The intransigence is not rational. And because this guy is American, he doesn’t get that all of his solutions have already been put into effect – certainly here in Canada – that does not alter the intransigence. He’s also wrong on a couple of points – like ‘natural’ immunity, which is very low versus delta but boosted 100 times by a single mRNA vaccine – and like masking, in that it does reduce transmission by about 3-10%, but this is almost entirely based on outdoor versus indoor (because it’s an aerosolized virus).

              But here’s the thing: not being vaccinated raises the risk to one’s self AND to everyone else. So it’s not a question of my body, my choice, but anti-vaxers insisting that My choice TRUMPS your body AND your choice. That’s a different thing when a communicable disease threatens EVERYONE. I didn’t hear this guy recognize this central point at all, about the public health THREAT the non and under-vaccinated pose to everyone. And this ongoing threat is absolutely central to the reason why mandatory vaccination against it is justified to trump one’s personal choice to be a higher risk.

              Unvaccinated people DO NOT have the right to impose this risk on everyone else. They think they do. They are wrong. This has already been legally established with intransigence against the polio vaccine overturned by the Supreme Court (here in Canada and the State Supreme Court in… Massachusetts, I think? ) allowing mandatory vaccinations for the public welfare. There was also a court case for Typhoid Mary in that her freedom was deemed reasonably constrained because she was carrier and an ongoing risk that had already killed something like 16 people even after being ordered not to come into close contact with others. But she continued to work in various domestic settings. She was incarcerated for this.

              All I’m saying here is that there are many legal precedents in various countries and their court rulings that imposing mandatory vaccinations is justified when the public health is at stake and there is unreasonable intransigence on the part of some that threatens the whole. And this is why legislation for public health officers gives them sweeping powers – in Canada, over and above elected representatives AND the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – to impose all kinds of temporary mandatory rules that do impose restrictions and curtail freedoms.

              I didn’t hear this guy explain any of this but pretend reasonable conversation will magically turn into mass vaccination. Well, THAT is entirely dependent on the reasonableness of those who are not vaccinated. And there are tens of millions in the US who are not reasonable.

              Liked by 1 person

            11. He has many videos. I’m not sure anyone could please you. The fact is it has been handled poorly with no clue about human nature at all.
              And yes we can blame politicians. There are 535 of them and everything happening at every level from taxes to healthscare is 100% on them. This is how they want it. There is no other explanation

              Like

            12. “He’s also wrong on a couple of points – like ‘natural’ immunity, which is very low . . .”

              Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells

              https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2

              SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy

              https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00141-3/fulltext

              Liked by 1 person

            13. Here, we evaluate 254 COVID-19 patients longitudinally up to 8 months and find durable broad-based immune responses”
              Maybe the doctor knows best? I thought the video presentation was more comprehensive and inclusive to what’s really going on and what’s working. It’s not just pure vaccination cheerleading but a more reasonable approach.

              Like

            14. My point is that these same methods he recommends have been used outside the US, and still the intransigent cannot be moved. In all my local vaccination centers, for example, were a minimum of four tables set up and staffed for anyone who had any questions or concerns with no time limit. Local medical press conferences occurred weekly headed up by the local health officer and every health unit and every hospital. All politicians are onboard. And still the intransigents cannot be moved. In other words, blaming politicians and the CDC for not doing a good enough job is fine as far as it may be true, and sure we wish we had better information from the get go. But it has been an evolving pandemic and evolving response to it where lots of mistakes have been made.

              So to blame politicians and poor messaging for today’s intransigents I think is the easy way out, an excuse. Correcting for these as if a ‘solution’ I think is a belief imposed on reality that will not move the needle (pun intended) on intransigents. Increasing coercion is the only method that works on this cohort where selfish interests will eventually outweigh all the various reasons for intransigents.

              My preference would have been for earlier mandatory passports to gain public access to gatherings including workplaces and have this done from the top down rather than left to private business and forums to enforce. In other words, everyone in the same boat at the same time.

              Liked by 2 people

            15. Back in 2004-5 homeland security developed the NIMS program to implement a standard approach to emergency management. You can literally work side by side with others trained in the process from anywhere in the country. Standard terminology and procedures. I was fortunate enough to be on the team in north central Washington. This has improved dramatically over the past decade and you can see it at work routinely in the fire service and wildland operations.
              It would be fantastic to have all of our governors in-sync with a similar protocol for future outbreaks and/or incidents where such a program could be implemented. I live next to Idaho, where you literally cross the state line and have a completely different set of rules. There needs to be a program developed out of this pandemic, rather than just winging it next time a new bug roles in.

              Liked by 1 person

            16. I propose that the most reasonable (and ethical) approach is the one that permits the individual to make his/her own medical decisions. Coercion is the tool of the tyrant and explicitly forbidden in paragraph on of the Nuremburg Code, which states:

              The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

              This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that, before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject, there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person, which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

              https://history.nih.gov/display/history/Nuremberg%2BCode

              It also violates the physician’s oath under the WMA International Code of Medical Ethics to “respect a competent patient’s right to accept or refuse treatment.”

              https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-international-code-of-medical-ethics/

              Liked by 1 person

            17. Yes but, but, but, this all seems out the window in an emergency with all these executive orders, even at the state level.
              Our governor here just single handedly signed a new tax for long term elderly care to assist payment for nursing homes. First in the nation. No precedent, no legislature, no vote, just make a law and start deductions. I really haven’t heard anyone even fight it, but it’s very much a dictatorship here in Washington. Although I kinda like the idea, he just does whatever he wants with this and also covid.

              Like

            18. Stick around. The real fun begins when he starts handing out yellow stars and passes for free helicopter rides to Medical Lake.

              Like

            19. I’ve taken many patients to Eastern State and no doubt about it, we are all on the scale somewhere.

              Like

            20. You are absolutely right. Reinfection is rare and tends to be mild. I stand corrected. Thank you.

              It is also true that immunity is boosted by a factor of about 100 with a single shot after recovery.

              Liked by 1 person

            21. He makes a lot of good points … but my problem with him and with SO MANY other folks that use videos … they usually get their point across in the first 5-8 min, but then they have to go on and on and on, essentially repeating everything they said at the beginning … just wording it a bit differently. Maybe some people need the reinforcement. I don’t. And I doubt I’m the only one.

              Anyway … has nothing to do with the issue under discussion. I’m just spouting off.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. No, it’s called REAL WORLD feelings and exhaustion and disgust by individuals who are treating people who think they know more about the virus and/or the vaccines than a majority of reputable doctors and scientists.

            You seem like an intelligent guy, Ron. And on many topics, I totally agree with you. But on this one, I truly, truly believe you’re missing the mark. Perhaps if you allowed yourself to mingle maskless and (obviously) without vaccine protection in a 100-200 crowd that believes as you do you might (regrettably) discover there’s something to be said about protection.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. The thing is that healthcare workers take an oath (and get paid) to treat their patients with kindness and compassion, not make value judgements about how they got there.

              And I’ve been mingling mask-free without COVID injections for my entire life.

              Like

            2. Actually, I was dead serious. Throughout this 20-month “pandemic” I’ve shook hands, hugged, embraced, and mingled mask-free with many people — and none of us got sick or died afterwards.

              Like

            3. Well aren’t you special. Let’s see, with today’s rates you might encounter 1 infected person out of 500. Hmmm…. must be the vitamins in your diet keeping those 499 at bay.

              Like

            4. I don’t take any drugs or health supplements. And yeah, staying healthy by being active and eating whole foods (many of them now grown at home) keeps the COVID and other nasty bugs away. Whodathunk?

              Liked by 1 person

        1. Ron Stated — “I wonder how it would go over if a nurse or doctor made a public statement accusing her AIDS, or diabetes, or high blood pressure, or lung cancer patients of personal negligence for their condition.”

          My Response — That’s a good point and it’s fair. It wouldn’t go well, but it should go as well as it does when they do it to unvaccinated covid patients. The fact that it doesn’t just shows the hypocrisy in this health crisis.

          Nan Referenced — “” … a California-based infectious disease doctor, can’t help but feel angry at patients that are life-threateningly ill from Covid-19 but could have avoided their illness by taking the vaccine.””

          My Response — This too is a good point and fair. Ron ignores the reality that hospitals are in a post-pandemic crisis where they are reaching breaking points but are still expected to service those who refuse to simplify their own conditions with treatments that do more good than they do harm.

          Why can’t we compromise and simply socialize healthcare so everyone can be treated?
          We can also agree to pay nurses what congressmen get paid, which will fatten the resource pool immediately.
          We can also build local medical factories, subsidized by the government, which would employ millions of out-of-work citizens, supplying high-grade medical equipment, masks, etc to the public below cost.

          Let people live how they want and use it as an opportunity to create more jobs for families in need by taking care of those poor bastards that didn’t know better.

          Just saying

          Liked by 1 person

  11. For the Rons of this world.

    Healthcare professionals like Dr Sharma (who invited CTV into his ICU ward in Hamilton Ontario) are “not only frustrated with the individuals, but with the larger machine of misinformation that leads people to be confused about vaccines and what is best for their health.

    “It’s anger with the social contract that got them into this situation, it is anger of people posting on social media that COVID-19 is not real, or that vaccines don’t work,” Sharma said. “That basically preys on vulnerable people, that makes them make bad decisions that lands them up here.

    Seventy-eight per cent of eligible Canadians have been fully vaccinated. Side effects are rare according to public health officials as are breakthrough COVID-19 cases, and vaccines have been proven to drastically minimize severe cases of COVID-19 as well as death in the event of a breakthrough case.

    What you’re hearing from people like Ron and cabrogal IS dis- and misinformation disguised as if rational skepticism. It isn’t. Don’t buy it. If global expert medical consensus isn’t enough for you, then find out for yourself and GO to a local hospital, go TALK to ICU staff. Stop spreading bullshit that doubts the efficacy and effectiveness and safety of vaccines, an unreasonable unsupported skepticism that puts ALL of us at additional risk.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. See, this is what I mean by COVID fear porn. From the article:

      “Inside this ICU, on the day of CTV’s visit, 30 per cent of the 45 beds are COVID-19 patients”

      45 x 0.3 = 15 patients, which leaves the other 30 beds available to others.

      Oh, and I’m still waiting for those regional numbers of total ICU beds before and after, plus the ICU bed to population ratio for your area, tildeb.

      Like

      1. IMO, the thing people miss in all this back-and-forth I’m right, you’re wrong “discussion” is people are dying, Most of the time they are dying ALONE. And in many instances, they are leaving behind children. (A recent incident is especially tragic — https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/pregnancyparenting/couple-die-of-covid-and-leave-behind-5-kids-including-newborn-daughter/ar-AAOoUOP.)

        Somehow I doubt the “statistics” matter very much to those that are trying to breathe … or to those who are left behind. Vaccines may not be right for everyone, but based on respected medical authorities, those that reject them are at a far great risk of contracting the virus.

        Yes, we are a “free” nation so people can choose to reject the vaccines and no one is going to throw them into jail. But many of them (along with their loved ones) are feeling the consequence of their decision.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Yes, people are dying — just as they have always have. And they are leaving behind children and grieving relatives — just as the always have.

          So the overriding issue here is not one of being right or wrong, so much as it is about making an informed decision as to the risk of dying from this disease in comparison to all those other causes. And the overwhelming data shows that the risk is small for those in optimal health — which, per my previous comment, is not just simply an absence of disease, but a serious undertaking to improve one’s health via proper diet, physical activity, sleep and stress reduction.

          So instead of scapegoating those of us who have chosen to up our natural immunity by looking after our health, it might be prudent to do likewise.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. ” And the overwhelming data shows that the risk is small for those in optimal health — which, per my previous comment, is not just simply an absence of disease, but a serious undertaking to improve one’s health via proper diet, physical activity, sleep and stress reduction.”

            You’re not listening, Ron. You’re just spreading what you believe. It’s simply not true.

            ‘Optimal health’ has nothing whatsoever to do with getting Covid or affecting the percentage of people who get severe symptoms. Optimal health does not affect the risk of suffering consequences from these severe symptoms. Those are the facts. But notice how your thinking only goes so far as to recognize death rates, which IS small. That fits your assumptions and so you continue to peddle it as if meaningful to your point. It’s not. Your point is factually wrong about presuming ‘optimal health’ reduces the risks unvaccinated people face from Covid. Delta LOVES this presumption and has thrived because of it. But you would have tweaked to this if you had actually LISTENED to these health care experts.

            Like

            1. What does the date have to do with it?

              Obesity was (and remains) a major risk factor, not only for COVID, but for all the other degenerative diseases, as well.

              And what do you think promotes obesity? (Hint: all those “health” mandates that sequestered people indoors for that past 20 months.)

              Like

            2. *sigh*

              Ron, vaccinations are about reducing several factors regarding this virus. That starts with RISK. What are the chances of getting Covid? Vaccinations DRAMATICALLY reduce this RISK across the board. That’s a fact.

              Yes, of course any compromising health condition is made more dangerous by getting Covid. Obesity was – notice the past tense, hence the reason I pointed out the DATE on the article you linked – a significant contributor to RISK earlier in the pandemic… as was age, as was any immunosuppressing condition. These factors increased the RISK. Nobody is disputing this. Being healthy is a good thing and usually promotes a good immune response (and there are exceptions to this, too). Nobody is disputing this, either.

              But the thing with Delta is that this difference has shrunk to almost insignificant when calculating RISK. In other words, in a room with 100 people, the RISK for becoming infected comparing those who are obese and those who are fricken Olympic athletes and bursting with vigor and health is almost identical. That’s a fact.

              Your position insists that this fact is not true. That is why I am commenting: you are factually WRONG to suggest good health mitigates the RISK from the Delta variant. It. Does. Not.

              I am not pounding the table; I am relaying facts that you disagree with. The problem is that your disagreement – and the actions and behaviors that your counter-factual opinion might justify in your own mind – puts EVERYONE else at higher RISK. Your good health and robust immune system is not going to protect you better than a vaccine. That is just the fact of the matter. And that fact is what makes you dangerous to anyone who might think you have a legitimate science-based medical opinion.

              Liked by 1 person

            3. You keep saying I’m wrong, yet you never link to any source data showing this to be the case. Could it be because you have none?

              Longitudinal Trends in Body Mass Index Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among Persons Aged 2–19 Years — United States, 2018–2020
              Weekly / September 17, 2021 / 70(37);1278–1283

              “Among a cohort of 432,302 persons aged 2–19 years, the rate of body mass index (BMI) increase approximately doubled during the pandemic compared to a prepandemic period. Persons with prepandemic overweight or obesity and younger school-aged children experienced the largest increases.”

              https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037a3.htm?s_cid=mm7037a3_w

              Like

            4. And here is a highlight from a WHO DISCUSSION PAPER dated 19 August 2021:

              “Overweight and obesity in adults are associated with increased all-cause mortality, with a higher proportion of adults with disability being overweight or obese compared to adults without disability. People with obesity have also a four-fold higher risk of developing severe COVID-19 disease than people with no obesity.

              WHO Discussion Paper: Draft recommendations for the prevention and management of obesity over the life course, including potential targets

              https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/who-discussion-paper-draft-recommendations-for-the-prevention-and-management-of-obesity-over-the-life-course-including-potential-targets

              Liked by 1 person

            5. My goodness, you are dense:

              Again, this data you supply does not refute what I keep saying like a broken record: the RISK of becoming infected is almost equal across the board regardless of other health concerns. What you are quoting here has to do with once someone HAS Covid. What I’m saying how likely is it anyone can GET covid. Do you grasp this difference?

              Vaccination reduces the likelihood of GETTING infected in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not how good your health is prior as you keep believing and saying as if true when this claim is FACTUALLY wrong.

              Liked by 2 people

            6. I’m not sure you or John could understand the depth of the perception here. I understand why Ron may be reluctant. The US and New Zealand are the only two countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to consumers. Watch tv or listen to the radio here in the US and commercial breaks are filled with pharmaceutical adds. “Ask your doctor if “X” medication is right for you.”
              It’s really amazing this is allowed, but medication and medication errors, the pressure doctors get to prescribe certain meds by their patients, is as big as big pharma itself.

              Liked by 1 person

            7. Yes, the risks of getting infected are potentially equal. But the risk of increased disease severity requiring medical attention is (and will be) much higher for those who are already in a poor state of health.

              As to vaccination reducing the likelihood of getting infected: it may; but then again, so does boosting your natural immunity via healthy living.

              However, the latter option doesn’t bring in the shekels for those who make their living treating illnesses, so it gets ignored. Can you name one policy advisor or public “health expert” who has promoted a change in diet and lifestyle during the past 20 months?
              Instead we got advice that further undermines our physical and mental health. Stress levels are through the roof. Substance abuse has skyrocketed.

              And the CDC released a report revealing that suicide attempts among teens — and especially among young girls — have increased dramatically.

              https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7024e1.htm

              Small wonder then, that obesity rates which contribute to the multitude of other non-communicable diseases cited by the WHO
              — coronary heart disease, hypertension and stroke, certain types of cancer, type 2 diabetes, gallbladder disease, dyslipidaemia, osteoarthritis and gout, and pulmonary diseases, including sleep apnoea — have also risen in lockstep with the “lockdowns” and forced isolation.

              “Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now.”
              ~Thomas Jefferson (Notes on the State of Virginia: Query XVII: Religion)

              Like

            8. “As to vaccination reducing the likelihood of getting infected: it may; but then again, so does boosting your natural immunity via healthy living.”

              No. Wrong. The likelihood is about equal with Delta. How many times does it take for you to understand this central point? This is why you are spreading disinformation. You really must stop… if you have any care about what’s true. That’s the REAL choice you’re making.

              Liked by 2 people

            9. More table pounding. If you really want to convince me I’m wrong, all it takes is links to empirical data in support of your argument. How about it?

              Like

            10. I don’t have the hard numbers (no time to search either), but Delta is having a bugger of a time spreading through Brazil due to the high vaccination rates here. Sao Paulo (97% vaccinated) would be a good case to look into.

              The strain, which is estimated to be almost twice as infectious as the original virus from early 2020, has caused fresh flareups across the world. Yet, it’s had a muted impact in Brazil so far.

              A major factor in the recent drop in cases, experts say, is the speed with which the region ultimately managed to vaccinate people. Governments in South America have generally not faced the kind of apathy, politicization and conspiracy theories around vaccines that left much of the United States vulnerable to the highly contagious Delta variant.

              Here’s two articles:

              https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-09-01/brazil-gets-its-vaccine-act-together

              Liked by 1 person

            11. That makes one wonder.
              “Israel, Once the Model for Beating Covid, Faces New Surge of Infections”—

              One of the most vaccinated societies, Israel now has one of the highest infection rates in the world, raising questions about the vaccine’s efficacy.

              Like

            12. See, this is what I mean. The data from Israel SEEMS to indicate vaccinations are still penetrated by Covid so therefore vaccinations are part of some global conspiracy.

              You don’t know how to read the data, Ron. You take nothing into account like what kind of vaccine, when it was delivered, ongoing effectiveness REDUCING all kinds of negative consequences from being exposed to the virus, and so on. Israeli data is central to figuring out the timeline when considering boosters, also of which kind, and so on. Nope. No real understanding. Just whatever SEEMS to support your denialism. You are still very wrong in how you interpret this data.

              Like

            13. Being near to 60 myself, and seeing the third dose doesn’t seem to be effective, how the hell am I supposed to know what to do? There is much conflicting data and hypocrisy and how can it be worded any differently that the most vaccinated society is having the highest outbreak worldwide?

              Like

            14. There is no conflicting data here. This is expected. This normal. It’s going to happen everywhere. This is known. Yesterday a study came out for showing declining effectiveness post 8 months over 60 and compromised. Other boosters not effective. Yet. Moderna better than Pfizer, both better than AZ. Combo better. More spaced out better. Israel vaccinated double dose quickly. Other places more spaced out and much higher effectiveness. And so on. This is ongoing and not conflicting. What’s conflicting comes form people like Ron who don’t understand the data.

              Like

            15. The data does requires some real expertise and even some mental wrangling. For much of it to make sense it is only if you want it to.
              My initial question was—is it ethical for our government to mandate vaccination using the threat of job and other financial sanctions to force compliance.
              We never really got there.
              I’m not sure I want to live the rest of my life on the vaccination tit. I hope we find another alternative to this. There has to be a better way.

              Like

            16. Is it ethical for our government to mandate not masturbating outside primary schools using the threat of job and other financial sanctions to force compliance?

              Or seat belts
              Or wearing clothes
              Or having your child immunized against polio
              Or not shooting people

              Liked by 1 person

            17. Sure. Those are social constructs except for the seatbelts which was “ “Insurance companies lobbied for mandatory seat-belt laws and regulations that required car manufacturers to put airbags in vehicles. It was a money thing…
              Common morality and seatbelts clash a bit I think. It doesn’t really apply to others hurting others.

              Liked by 1 person

            18. Well I guess I answered my own question. If it is dangerous for others for me to refuse vaccination, then I suppose it could be ethical to mandate them. It seems to those in refusal, the safety of the vaccine is in question. Not enough time in the trials. Should they be able to force an experimental drug into the populous?
              Curious, does Australia follow the lead of the FDA, or pretty much call their own shots? (pun)

              Liked by 1 person

            19. It has it’s own “FDA” body, which blundered terribly in cautioning against Astra Zeneca. That’s why Oz is in the mess it is right now with Delta.

              Liked by 2 people

            20. Well for what it’s worth using Israel as an example, it may or may not have mattered much. Brazil seems to be holding steady though. It’s a an interesting follow. I’m not sure anyone is to blame but Mother Nature.

              Like

            21. John hits a central point about unvaccinated enclaves versus population data. In places where enclaves remain largely unvaccinated even though (relatively) small as a total percentage of the population, you set the stage to undo the work of almost everyone BECAUSE there’s this misguided assumption that vaccination stops infection. It doesn’t. It simply lowers the RISK. I cannot stress enough how little people seem to grasp the concept of RISK and public health policies to mitigate RISK. RISK is reduced to zero only after one dies.

              Like

            22. Blame?

              Cant blame the virus. Can point a finger at wet markets and deforestation for the bridge. Can also get mad at anti-vaxxers for their selfishness… which only prolongs the problem, and the longer the virus is circulating it’s mutating.

              Liked by 2 people

            23. One thing, John. It has been an assumption that the virus is related to human activity in a number of possibilities, from the Wuhan lab to the wet market. I tried on Ark’s blog to explain why this probably isn’t the case – because bats harvest various kinds of corona viruses that do cross the species boundary and so we can get it in a variety of ways that has nothing to do with deforestation or eating meat necessarily (although it might) and everything to do with bats (highly beneficial creatures to humanity as a pollinator specifically).

              So today we have a report out of Laos:
              “Major new Bat sarbecovirus discovery in horseshoe bats in Laos. A virus with a spike protein containing an RBD only 2 amino acids different from Wuhan SARS CoV2 and uses hACE2 as efficiently. So now this is definitive. There is nothing unnatural or “uniquely adapted” about SARS2″
              (here)

              Liked by 1 person

            24. During the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, researchers quickly tried to identify the source patient. Another researcher misread some scribbled notes reading ‘patient O’ (as in the letter O) as patient zero, a French-Canadian flight attendant Gaëtan Dugas.
Four years ago (nearly 25 years later) the patient zero hypothesis has been put to rest and Dugas ‘cleared’ as patient zero, but the term lives on, misleading those who do not understand how disease processes work—or pathophysiology (Dugas died believing he had killed 1000s) Researchers don’t like the term because it is misleading how disease processes develop.
Dr. Ian Lipkin, a professor of epidemiology and director of the Center for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University in New York, said, “It is not uncommon for infectious agents to percolate in the environment for years or even decades without detection”, and finding the absolute beginning is a pipe-dream.
              Hard to say.

              Liked by 1 person

            25. Jim, don’t you think it’s handy to understand the spread? This necessarily involves working backwards and trying to figure out where the source is so that measures can be taken to contain it as best we can. This is EXACTLY how the WHO keeps a lid on Ebola, in which a marberg variant arose in the local population just over a week ago. A team went in and did mandatory vaccinations and the spread has now been stopped. Epidemic averted.

              You don’t see demonstrations at the airport demanding we allow Ebola to sweep the globe because ‘evolution’ donchaknow, or that we’d be better off after many millions bleed out through the eyes and ears and mouth while their organs turn to mush. In fact, it’s rather handy to be able to contain such an infectious virus (WAY less infectious than SARS-CoV-2 delta variant) BEFORE it starts killing millions of people and doing all that ‘good’. At least, I think it’s handy. And perhaps just a tad more ethical than interfering with vaccinations and trying to increase the casualty list in the name of ‘mY fREEdOM’. But that’s me thumping the old table again. I’m funny that way… thinking needless pain and suffering we can control much better should be controlled. I’m sure many more people of greater ethical depth than I will explain how and why I’m wrong, that pandemics are just the Best. Thing. Ever.

              Liked by 1 person

            26. I agree it’s important to understand the spread, that’s why I’ll hold off on the finger pointing because these things are tricky. AIDS kicked around for decades and this likely has beginnings before what we want to scape goat into being the bad guy.
              I don’t really have an affinity for what goes on in wet markets or wuhan labs, but it’s an easy bogey man to throw under the bus.
              Remember in the 80’s, homosexuals were the bad guys but it actually it started long before Gaétan Dugas.

              Like

            27. Holding off on recognizing facts is not a virtue, Jim. The unvaccinated are increasing the risk for themselves and every one else. Pointing out this fact is not ‘blaming’; it’s recognizing what’s true. Surely any rational person would agree that the basis for any ‘dialogue’ must start with agreeing that reality and what’s true matters… because if those are off the table, then reason and evidence – like with creationists – are meaningless and ignorance is just as valid as knowledge. Better stock up on Ivermectin and find a good spot to point one’s anus at the sun to take care of that Covid.

              Like

            28. What the hell? I was commenting on John’s comment blaming wet markets and that these disease processes percolate sometimes for years in the environment. I just think we should know for sure before social media convicts the Chinese.
              I don’t take ivermectin, but I do have a good stash of Phenylbutazone. Maybe that’s the trick

              Liked by 1 person

            29. No (it’s not ethical) to all but the last, because it’s the only one that actually inflicts direct harm upon others.

              Like

            30. Preferably not but the dangers of remaining unvaccinated are great and grow even more so over time. One would hope more people would take advantage not only of the personal benefits but do so for the good of the populace. This is how we got rid of smallpox and malaria, how we keep a handle on ebola and other highly contagious viruses that are still out there. Diphtheria. Whooping cough. Tetanus. And so on. This is not rocket science but simple, practical, proven, and highly effective public health measures.

              Against all this we have deniers. Anti-vaxers. Conspiracy theorists. The stupid. The intransigents. The Merchants of Doubt. We have a cascade of dis- and misinformation.

              Because reason has left the playing field and reality has no impact on such people, what is a government to do? Sit back and allow another the pandemic to go on and on and on and on and on and on, wave after wave after wave after wave….. This isn’t a policy. It’s letting – allowing – the covijits rule the health and welfare of the public in the name of something else that when collected is synonymous with ignorance and stupidity. That’s the policy right now with so much kid glove treatment of those who don’t give a shit about anyone else AND help put more people at higher RISK. Needlessly. Stupidly. And driving people out of health care. And helping kill real people in real life by not exercising due diligence.

              So we face ever increasing moves to make vaccination more preferable than not. Boo hoo to those who don’t like it. Your intransigence has helped bring this about this need.

              Is it ethical? The point is how sad a statement this is that it is needed. Anti-vaxers and the ‘hesitant’ deserve public shaming and if they’re not going to act responsibly, continue acting as spoiled little gits mewling about a needle then the state will have to intervene and act as the grown up. How sad is that?

              The right question is how ethical is it for these gits to refuse vaccination? We know as a fact that refusing vaccination puts everyone else in so much more danger and imposes their idiocy on everyone else without any real appreciation or understanding or concern towards increasing the risk of others including themselves of what they are failing to do. Being forced to get vaccinated is standard procedure for kids to go school, for people to travel. Big deal. But with these anti-vaxers? How ethical is it to respect the rights of those who have zero respect not just for the rights of others but have no regard for their lives at all? You get what what give, you cats your bread upon the waters, you reap what you sew, you do unto others as you would have done unto you, and so on.

              Liked by 2 people

            31. It’s not ‘unevidenced’. The Delta wave has not materialized in places like it has where vaccination rates are extremely high. It’s still there… like polio… but it doesn’t do what it’s doing in places that have lower vaccination rates. But Delta is going to continue regardless. Israel’s situation does not demonstrate what you think it does.

              Like

            32. Who mentioned Delta? You claimed there wouldn’t be a 4th wave if everyone were immunized, yet Israel, which has administered three doses, is now riding a 4th wave. And Israel reported they had a Delta outbreak in July, as well. Hence the reason for the third does. So even that attempted sidestep is in error.

              Liked by 1 person

            33. *sigh*

              Why do you keep commenting to someone who only ‘pounds the table’?

              But still, the key word you’ve ignored (like you do all facts contrary to your belief), Ron, is wave. We wouldn’t have a 4th WAVE if more people had been vaccinated earlier. That’s what has happened in other places that did vaccinate over 90% before delta arrived. The ‘wave’ I specifically mentioned – in case the concept is still so discombobulating to you as to be meaningless – is the rise and fall of reported cases over time that when charted (in literally thousands of examples easily available to such serious ‘skeptics’ as yourself) and is the very data you say you need me to provide you. But being as helpless as you apparently are to find out this kind of common knowledge without a table pounder to lead you to these waters regarding how epidemics and pandemics are measured, let me help with this comment. The rise and fall of infections on these graphs look like a ‘wave’. Hence, the term.

              See? I knew you could grasp it… eventually.

              Like

            34. Per their own data:

              90+: D1=83% D2=80 D3=66
              80s: D1=90% D2=87 D3=75
              70s: D1=90% D2=88 D3=78
              60s: D1=91% D2=88 D3=70
              50s: D1=89% D2=84 D3=57
              40s: D1=87% D2=82 D3=46
              30s: D1=85% D2=78 D3=34
              20s: D1=80% D2=73 D3=26

              16-19: D1=83% D2=71 D3=17
              12-15: D1=51% D2=37 D3=0

              Like

            35. The 61 was officially double vax. The total number of shots puts it approximately 81%.

              But the point is that a well vaccinated population to suppress the risk of delta is ~90% and Israel is not there. That’s why delta has blossomed and is not ‘evidence’ to support your weird and utterly bizarre notion that widespread vaccination is just too darn risky. It’s not. It is a benefit across all metrics. Your position is contrary to all data.

              Like

            36. Maybe we need to start thinking g of this as a prophylactic? Immunity implies something here the vaccination doesn’t provide

              Like

            37. Right. That’s why you look at the date, Ron. For the original strain, that was a good bet. And when efficacy reports started to emerge about Pfizer and Moderna especially, it became recommended policy to reach these numbers. And because this is a total population figure that has to be achieved – but we have a significant percentage who cannot get vaccinated (under 12 years of age) – the rate for those eligible comes in around 90%. But now there’s a complication: we’re dealing with delta, and have been for a while. We’ve been collecting real world data and studying it. So we know more today than in December of 2020. Surprise, surprise. And the immunity level necessary to achieve herd immunity has risen slightly. Nothing you keep posting alters anything regarding what we know today, that vaccines are the only way to significantly mitigate the risk of Covid and has a net benefit across all metrics. And it’s safe. Nothing you have posted raises any concerns whatsoever about these facts. They only SEEM to justify SOME doubt, and that’s why it’s so pernicious what you’re intentionally doing.

              But why don’t you see what you’re doing? You are ignoring up to date info and searching ONLY for data that SEEMS to support your anti-vax position. In any other subject, you would point this out to someone committing the same error. But when it comes to vaccines, you seem oblivious to why that approach is considered a fallacy, a mistake, poor thinking. You are operating not just in bad faith by continuing to go to this poisoned well and using it repeatedly as a tactic but don’t seem to care. That should concern you, because we know that is EXACTLY how reality deniers and conspiracy theorists and creationists fool themselves. And that’s what you’ve successfully done: fooled yourself. And now you are trying to fool others. Shame on you.

              Like

            38. You fail to notice that we’re talking total population and not by age cohorts when we speak of herd immunity through vaccination, which is what you’re suggesting doesn’t suppress the spread of delta when we know it does. And there are real world examples of this. Nan has a nice visual on her blog to show how interrupting the chain of transmission through vaccination helps do this. Your example of Israel is not relevant to this achievement and real world examples that demonstrate this. Why you are so intransigent to beneficial knowledge is a mystery perhaps best explained by your determination to try to find only data that confirms your opinion. This is a thinking error, Ron, and you commit it repeatedly here. To what ends? To prove yourself utterly and absolutely wrong? Well, mission accomplished.

              Like

            39. You determined all that from a chart of numbers? Amazing!!!

              Missed in your table-pounding rant is that herd immunity also includes those who have already acquired a natural immunity to the disease. But that doesn’t fit your forced injection protocol — does it Dr. Mengle?

              Liked by 1 person

            40. Your fists must be getting awfully sore from all that pounding by now. Perhaps you should consider taking a break to let then recover.

              Like

            41. The proper initial response would have been to isolate the most vulnerable and let the disease runs its course throughout the general population. But that ship has sailed. Based on the current data, it appears that people under 60 are now becoming more susceptible to the new variants than they were to the first and the efficacy of the vaccines appears to be waning. So yearly booster shots will become the norm, for those who choose to go that route.

              Liked by 1 person

            42. You’re right Having healthy people line up for a never-ending succession of booster shots to ward off a low-risk disease is idiotic.

              Liked by 1 person

            43. Stop searching for data that SEEMS to agree with your counter-factual belief and start looking and listening to reality. Stop hiding behind, “YOU have to convince me” and, “I demand YOU give me more data and YOU provide me citations on demand” and look at who are the people who are getting Covid, listen to the people who work with Covid patients. The message is the same as what the data everywhere tells us is the case: the percentage who are unvaccinated are massively OVER represented in infection. There’s all the data any reasonable, rational person needs to have to err on the side of caution and GET VACCINATED.

              Liked by 1 person

            44. I posted two articles about how vaccination rates have slowed Delta’s spread through Brazil, but Jim has to approve the comment.

              The strain, which is estimated to be almost twice as infectious as the original virus from early 2020, has caused fresh flareups across the world. Yet, it’s had a muted impact in Brazil so far.

              A major factor in the recent drop in cases, experts say, is the speed with which the region ultimately managed to vaccinate people. Governments in South America have generally not faced the kind of apathy, politicization and conspiracy theories around vaccines that left much of the United States vulnerable to the highly contagious Delta variant.

              Liked by 1 person

            45. It’s almost like there’s a reason for medical expert consensus on why everyone should get vaccinated. I think it’s called ‘real world data’. And I think ( because I keep on encountering gobs and gobs and gobs of aligned data) it also is unidirectional. It takes a special concerted effort to try to find some way of interpreting all this data to find some means – any means – to question, to disagree, to assume one’s contrary opinion is somehow equivalent.

              This is why selling doubt takes on the mask of ‘skepticism’ and uses detail that SEEMS to go against the consensus… as if, “Ah ha! Look at what I found! Something that I think bolsters my denialist opinion!” And it’s constant. And this is the ‘special’ feeling I mentioned previously by those who think they REALLY ARE smarter and more insightful on this issue than every real world expert on the planet. I think this monstrous ego is a necessary component to qualify if not as a Talk Radio conspiracy host then a contrarian commentator who ‘knows better’.

              Like

            46. To be perfectly frank, watching this politicized anti-vax anti-mask circus going on in the US is unnerving. It’s sickening to know there is a media machine (filled with vaccinated celebrities, mind you) telling the un-vaccinated not to get vaccinated… Because they are making money off it.

              Here in SP we’re 97% vaccinated, and NO ONE has a problem wearing a mask. Shit, I wear a mask walking the dogs in the bush! It doesn’t bother me. Everyone wears a mask. It doesn’t bother them. And, because we’re 97% vaccinated Delta, while here and spreading, has not taken a hold.

              Liked by 3 people

            47. I know a lady here that was vaccinated just a couple weeks ago, now she is panicked about it because her friends cued her in on what the government isn’t telling us. It does make the play more exciting and anxious, on the edge of your seat to have these doubts. Wondering if you’ve just slowly killed yourself by changing your dna on the advice of the medical machine, is quite a twist in the plot vs just everything being fine. People thrive because of it. Gives life meaning for them. Is conspiracy theory any less organic than data? They sort of go together her in america. It’s a cute little twist of the bias hairs I think.

              Like

            48. There’s always been these fringe nuts. There always will be. Lampooning them was what kept that bubble of gentle madness small and manageable [read: not spreading]. The difference today is that they have a media machine backing them, egging them on, feeding them.

              Honestly, I really don’t know what the US is going to do about Fox/OANN/NewsMax.

              Liked by 2 people

            49. Makes me wonder when I think about evolution, which side it’s on? It is the pressure that makes it improve. Maybe life has just been too good to go anywhere interesting?

              Liked by 1 person

            50. It’s easy to think that we’d be miles ahead without them, but as you know everything is as exactly as it could be. Have you ever read ‘On The Problem of Good’? Great book! Haha. For every perceived goodness there are a million variables that may or may not turn out the way we want. I trust evolution to do its thing. What side I choose is irrelevant to it.

              Liked by 1 person

            51. Ron is not alone.


              This is a headline from this morning from liberal Washington state, thousands of state employees are seeking exemption

              Like

            52. Of course he isn’t. That’s why we have Delta causing the mayhem it is. There are tens of millions in the States alone!

              Something has gone badly wrong when so many think they shouldn’t get a vaccine.

              Like

            53. I often think the US is what a country run by hormonal teenagers would look and act like. Occasionally a grown up surfaces but that is often the exception. And the influence this teen has on the rest of the world tends to reflect what a clique would have instigating peer pressure. So it is refreshing to see people of other nations set a better example like the level of vaccination in other populous places. The data shows effectiveness in many ways. But the people of the US generally are as oblivious to the rest of the world as any self-absorbed teen would be pondering who ‘deserves’ to be hated this week.

              Liked by 1 person

            54. A simple “no” would have sufficed.

              I’ll regard your refusal as an inability to defend your position. In essence, you’ve taken the stance of the religious apologist who demands I ignore the data and accept their personal testimony as evidence instead.

              Liked by 1 person

            55. As you know, I try to pass along good info (the podcast I mentioned a couple of days ago here has some interesting info on those grocery store test kits – and what the different results actually means – I know you’ve encountered).

              I’m not going to play Ron’s game. If he’s interested in what’s true, he has every capability to find out without involving such a terribly biased person as myself. But as long as he chooses to deny reality he’ll do what contrarian believers have done forever: convince themselves they know better and slot those who don’t go along with the charade to have some kind of character flaw. Boilerplate denialism. And the accompanying Grand Conspiracy to account for all the contrary data. And just look at all those super rich climate scientists and evolutionary biologists, donchaknow, peddling their lies and making a fortune out of all of us gullible people. It’s tedious.

              Liked by 2 people

            56. It’s not my position! This is the medical consensus. Global medical consensus. Expert consensus. You know, because of overwhelming compelling evidence consensus. This is what people are equating with an alternate point of view as if both are reasonable. They’re not. To borrow a phrase, to think an alternate point of view is as reasonable, as well informed, as compelling because of evidence, is – literally in the case of Covid – batshit crazy.

              Liked by 2 people

            57. I didn’t say you did. My point is that I prefer my data raw, not filtered through others. And if you think NYT and Bloomberg are unbiased sources, then you’re sadly mistaken.

              Like

            58. You don’t care at all about data. You ONLY care about data that SEEMS to align with your vaccine denialism. You’re like a creationist.

              Like

            59. ”The bad news, doctors say, is that half of Israel’s seriously ill patients who are currently hospitalized were fully vaccinated at least five months ago. Most of them are over 60 years old and have comorbidities. The seriously ill patients who are unvaccinated are mostly young, healthy people whose condition deteriorated quickly”—NPR

              Like

            60. Yeah so? This doesn’t look good for the effectiveness. This is concerning data, maybe we need a second look.

              Like

            61. Your “beyond reproach” attitude toward the vaccine is concerning.
              ”Interpreting vaccine efficacy data is a complex task that requires considering many nuances such as the size of the study’s population, the dates and length of observation, multiple types of vaccines in circulation, and many other variables. But one thing is clear, there is a distinct waning in the effectiveness of the immunity and protection that the vaccine provides over time.

              As one of the quickest countries to roll out the vaccine, Israel acts as the canary in the coal mine for us all, especially in the United States, where we have few other modes of public health protections. As weary as many of us are about Covid protocols and interventions, we must not remain complacent, as this virus is far from running out of tricks”

              Like

            62. I have a question considering viral interference and interferon. I wonder if it would be just as effective to just start everyone on a booster regiment of our more common vaccines? If you don’t know where I’m going with this, never mind, but it seems like we could do something different than fighting fire with fire.

              Like

            63. I’d like to know how their social distancing/mask wearing is going. I do recall a massive orthodox gathering just a few weeks ago. One person with Delta in that group, and you have a breakout.

              Liked by 2 people

            64. I know I’ve got my own office and wear a mask and stay shy of gathering. I haven’t had a sniffle in 17 months. I usually get URI with a cold a couple times a year, but no one in my family has had anything. Distancing does seem to work.

              Liked by 2 people

            65. Yeah, so there’s evidence that during a pandemic that BMI for 2-19 years old went up. Yeah. So? How does this in any way deflect the fact that Delta’s risk is not much affected by obesity like earlier in the pandemic, that you were using old data about obesity’s role not relevant to Delta, and that you continue to claim good health is mitigation enough for Delta when factually it is not?

              Again and again, you return to the same confirmation bias tactic of searching for data that only SEEMS to support your contra-factual beliefs?

              Look, Delta is about 1000 times more contagious than earlier variants. This is WHY it is now the dominant strain and why Mu is making very little headway against it. To suggest this doesn’t have a dramatic impact on how contagious it – the RISK – is pretty silly, Ron. The more people who have it, the higher the risk to everyone. The only way to curb it is by mass vaccination.

              Another way to think of it is that if everyone who could have gotten vaccinated had done so by July 4th, we wouldn’t be in a 4th wave. And this is supported by evidence out of both Denmark and Iceland where Delta has made little inroad – even against obese people! – because the risk of coming into contact with it is dramatically lower BECAUSE so many people have been vaccinated.

              Again and again and again, the evidence is clear: mass vaccination is good public health policy. Wouldn’t it be great if more people were responsible citizens like the Danes and over 90% got vaccinated without being bribed or threatened or vilified but because their trust in public health wasn’t intentionally eroded by those determined to spread mis- and disinformation?

              Like

            66. “How does this in any way deflect the fact that Delta’s risk is not much affected by obesity like earlier in the pandemic”

              [citation needed]

              “if everyone who could have gotten vaccinated had done so by July 4th, we wouldn’t be in a 4th wave”

              [citation needed]

              Liked by 1 person

            67. Obesity — pardon the self-promotion, but keep an eye on my blog as I will be posting on this topic in the near future. I think some people will be surprised at the information I’ll be sharing.

              Liked by 1 person

            68. There is an entire branch of medicine aimed (wasted?) on people that don’t control their diet and exercise. According to this same reasoning refusal to do so is a waste of resources and treatment should be to the end of the line

              Like

            69. It would be interesting to address obesity in this same manner as covid. We won’t treat you because you eat too much and don’t exercise —

              Liked by 1 person

            70. This seems to be the sort of medical apartheid the pro-vax advocates are calling for. You smoked? Sorry, no cancer care for you. You drank alcohol? Guzzled pop and ate junk foods? Engaged in unprotected sex? Didn’t wear a seat belt? Too bad. No medical treatments for you.

              Liked by 1 person

      2. Ron, you have assumed we’re at peak (meaning Ontario) or that overcrowding is the current problem. We’re not there right now. BUT THAT’S NOT THE POINT. Alberta is already at 95% capacity. Nurse and doctors ARE quitting. Almost all Covid patients using these incredibly expensive resources are UNVACCINATED ( (some places over 85%, some over 95%). They are causing surgeries to be cancelled. They are causing heart and stroke patients to die. Thjey are advancing cancer in thousands of people BECAUSE taking up an ICU bed is not for a few hours; often, it’s for a few MONTHS! Yet the gits are outside DEMONSTRATING against the ONE thing that helps mitigate every single aspect of this disease. Vaccination. Plain. Simple. Honest. Fact.

        Look, you keep on using the same tactic here: using whatever information you can find that SEEMS to support your skepticism. That’s why it’s disinformation! That’s why you are very much part of the problem and very much an active supporter of spreading this disease and feeling good about it: through your refusal to respect reality and continue to doubt the known solution, you’re not helping, Ron. You’re hurting real people in real life by supporting the elevation of risk to EVERYONE in the name of spreading disinformation. The doctors and nurse in this coverage are trying to talk to YOU! Listen!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. you’re such a slut for science, tildeb. every time the word science is said, you fall on your back.

          even scientists don’t trust science as much as you do. why they know so little about this virus, and they admit it. for example, nobody talks about why some people die, and the majority hardly have any symptoms with covid. what exactly makes that difference?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I believe ‘skepticism’ is a central pillar of the method of discovery we call “science.”

            That being said, I haven’t heard of any specialist expressing skepticism. Can you give me some examples of these specialists?

            Like

            1. watch for language like “the illness (meaning covid) evolves in unpredictable ways” which hides the fact they don’t understand it fully.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. and typically, with scientists, what they know, they thinks it is ALL there is to know.
              basically, they don’t know what they don’t know.

              Like

            3. That’s true of everyone though. Like anyone that invests a lot of time and effort it’s hard to admit you may have chosen the wrong path. It becomes the sunken cost fallacy.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Obviously Monicat doesn’t know any scientists. They are the least sure you’ll every meet and the most likely to admit they know almost nothing about everything. But here’s the thing: what they do have high confidence in is worth knowing. And the value of vaccinations to reduce risk for SARS-CoV-2 and all of its variants has very high confidence. You can bet your life on it.

              Liked by 2 people

        1. There’s nothing to dismiss. In fact, the numbers reveal there’s little to fear.

          The WHO reports that the world’s top ten killers (Ischaemic heart disease, stroke, COPD, lower respiratory infections, neonatal conditions, trachea, bronchus, and lung cancers, Alzheimer’s and dementia, diarrheal diseases, diabetes and kidney diseases) account for 55% of the 55.4 million deaths worldwide. Of these the world’s biggest annual killers are :

          – Heart Disease (8.9 million, 16%)
          – Stroke ( >6 million, 11%)
          – COPD (>3 million, 6%)

          https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death

          Dividing the 4.8 million cumulative deaths over 21 months into the world’s 7.8 billion population works out to 0.0615% deaths attributed to COVID. And that number fizzles even further once you factor in that ~95% of those reported COVID deaths also listed three or more of the above 10 comorbidities in the death certificate.

          Liked by 1 person

            1. Packed ICUs are entirely attributable to the decades of mismanagement that led to declines in per-capita health expenditures and ICU to population ratios. Prior to this big COVID scamdemic, the ICUs were overrun by flu patients every winter.

              Like

            2. Overcrowded ERs does happen. But cancelling life-saving surgeries and higher risk therapies like cancer treatments because of an overcrowded ER is not true. And so it is very much a distinction you fail to grasp. Perhaps if the cancellation were for your organ transplant, you’d begin to see people who wave away the life-saving differences as if irrelevant in a much, MUCH harsher light.

              Like

            3. From another article posted Feb 27, 2015:

              For months, Thunder Bay Regional Health Sciences Centre has been operating beyond its capacity. Patients are crowded into hallways and common areas. Elective surgeries have been cancelled.

              The departing president of the hospital, Andrée Robichaud, said on Wednesday the overcrowding is not her fault. Rachlis agrees. He said health care funding is tied to running as close to capacity as possible.

              “Even if everything is being done perfectly, hospital executives are required to run at 95 per cent capacity,” Rachlis said. “You don’t need anything more than Grade 3 math to understand if you’re running at 95 per capacity and then flu season comes along, you’re going to get a surge and you’re guaranteed to get gridlock.”

              https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/hospital-overcrowding-inevitable-in-ontario-expert-says-1.2974339

              Liked by 1 person

            4. Yes, 2015, elective surgeries. Doesn’t explain the full ICUs today from Covid, especially when ICU capacity has been expanded to multiples of 2019.

              Come on, Ron. All you’re doing is mining for data that SEEMS to support your position and then hiding behind those as if it ‘explains’ your current beliefs. You know the opposite is true: you have imported your beliefs, imposed them on reality, and THEN mining for data to try to support them. This is what climate change deniers, creationists, and conspiracy theory aficionados do. That’s a clue…

              Like

            5. You have that reversed, because my opinions on the ICU shortage are formulated on data that’s been available (and reported upon) for nigh over a decade. It’s you who chooses to ignore these “inconvenient truths” staring you in the face.

              Liked by 1 person

          1. You Stated — “there’s little to fear”

            My Response — Nearly 5 million people dead and your advise to me is not to fear it, go about your day as normal and don’t wear a mask and don’t get a vaccinated.

            And before you reply with, “I didn’t say don’t..” but there’s the rub, if you don’t want me to fear it then I don’t need to take any precautions.

            I’m not convinced by your argument that almost 5 million dead men, women, and children is a peaceful reminder for men to ease up on my concerns of covid being something I should fear.

            You Stated — “The WHO reports that the world’s top … killers – Heart Disease (8.9 million, 16%)– Stroke ( >6 million, 11%)– COPD (>3 million, 6%)”

            My Response — So your argument is to only fear a few things that kill people and ignore the rest. Why protect yourself from a rising serial killer with 3 others on the loose.

            Applying that logic we should all stop trying to prevent teenage suicide since more kids die in the world from bad drinking water.

            Police should stop responding to domestic abuse calls since most people die from heart disease. We should defund the police and create a heart response force.

            I’m not convinced by your argument that I should ignore a hazard to human life based on other hazards to human life existing elsewhere.

            You Stated — “Dividing the 4.8 million cumulative deaths over 21 months into the world’s 7.8 billion population works out to 0.0615% deaths attributed to COVID. And that number fizzles…”

            My Response — So, for you, 4,819,145 dead humans, countless families devastated, children left without parents is basically just a “fizzle”.

            237,345,042 people currently infected, some going to die, others left with permanent health issues is just a “fizzle”.

            Your advise to me is to ignore it and take no precautions. (No fear = no precautions)

            I’m not the least bit convinced by your argument.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Did I say you shouldn’t take precautions? If you parse through my comments, you will find I linked to a study showing that obesity was the primary health risk for those dying of COVID and succumbing to other degenerative late-stage diseases (like those mentioned in the WHO report), and advised people to strengthen their immune systems by taking better care of their health, because if you abuse your body, it will eventually repay you with ill health.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. You Stated — “Did I say you shouldn’t take precautions? ”

              My Response — Then we are in agreement. We should wear masks and definitely take the vaccine as a precautionary measure.

              Liked by 3 people

            3. I’m of the opinion that we should wear masks and/or get vaxxed if we so choose, but leave those same choices up to each individual.

              I’ve chosen to focus my efforts on looking after my health, because maintaining one’s natural immunity guards against a wide ranged of diseases, rather than just a single one.

              Liked by 1 person

            4. You Stated — “I’m of the opinion that we should wear masks and/or get vaxxed if we so choose”

              My Response — I 100% agree…. AND I agree that the government and private businesses can set rules for any job site they control… so, if they want a person vaxxed and wearing a mask to work onsite, then they must be or they can find another place to work.

              You Stated — “maintaining one’s natural immunity guards against a wide ranged of diseases, rather than just a single one.”

              My Response — As you already know Ron, Covid causes a self damaging autoimmune response in the host body. A strong healthy immune system is not the solution to this virus.

              Like

            5. Sure, in an ideal world, an employer would be able to implement whatever hiring policies and standards it wants to set: dress codes, hours, wage rates, break periods, PPE, age, physical condition, medical conditions, marital status, religious and political beliefs, ethnicity, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, etc.

              So when the police/fire/paramedic services and military set their requirements for fit young men of certain height and weight who can endure intense physical labor and lift heavy objects, that should be their prerogative.

              As for COVID, the evidence shows it’s similar to other viral infection: people with healthy immune systems will either ward it off entirely, or suffer only minor symptoms, while those who have neglected their health will suffer more severely.

              Liked by 1 person

            6. SHEESH! This blog of Jim’s has taken on a life of its own!!

              Anyway, Ron, you said that people with healthy immune systems will be able to ward off the virus. But SOME people are not BORN with these healthy immune systems you speak of. Thus, based on your reasoning, this would make them more vulnerable to the virus, yes? So, wouldn’t it make sense for them to take the necessary precautions (like masks and vaccines) in order to stay as healthy as possible?

              Further, immune systems are not something that are visible via an x-ray or other diagnostic machine so while a person may be overall healthy, they may still have weaknesses that could come into play if they were exposed to the virus.

              Like

            7. Good points, Nan. It’s almost like some people care about others. Weirdos (and potential nazis-in-waiting). Of course, some people don’t – the true patriots and freedom lovers, donchaknow – and it’s hard to argue them into giving a shit or accepting any responsibility beyond their own narrow concerns… something as horrendous as getting a pair of safe and effective needles. End of days, surely.

              What Ron’s misguided belief fails to take into account is the overwhelming evidence that age – and not morbidities – is the primary risk factor and not the health of one’s immune system. Again, the key word there is ‘age’. This is by far the greater consideration even though I’m sure Ron can come up with thousands of examples of people who produce complex symptoms AND have comorbidities. His belief must stay firmly in place. That is his mission.

              I think I mentioned having an Olympic athlete as well as many (many dozens, anyway) of extraordinarily fit and healthy young people (several triathletes and Iron Man competitors, weightlifters, martial artists, marathon runners, and a slew of yoga instructors) get not just complex symptoms and require ICU help to live but a life-changing alteration to their fitness after the infection was beaten. This doesn’t fit Ron’s narrative, but hey. People like Ron will not allow compelling evidence contrary to their imported belief interfere with a soothing narrative. That’s why mandatory vaccines are necessary: because reason and medical advice from the most highly trained virologists and infectious disease experts in the world doesn’t do the job, not when belief is already fixed.

              My problem isn’t that some people don’t agree with the science or have concerns about why they should be a recipient of mandated vaccination; it’s that he spreads misinformation by hiding behind cherry-picked data that he intentionally uses to try to undermine not just respect for reality but puts others at greater risk for real world negative consequences to serve his belief. He’s willing for everyone else to pay the cost of his beliefs in action and thinks this is somehow ‘ethical’.

              Like

            8. To your first question, I think I’ve already affirmed that those who know they are immunocompromised should take extra precautions in previous comments.

              To your second question: sure, anything is possible. Just as one can take defensive driving courses, wear seat belts, purchase a vehicle equipped with multiple safety features (like anti-locking brakes, stabilization control, airbags, shatter-proof glass, heavy duty bumpers and enhanced steering control) and obey all the traffic rules, yet still get killed by a drunk driver speeding through a red light or stop sign, so too can someone who takes good care of themselves still get infected by an illness. But it’s about proactive mitigation of risk — not seeking out ironclad, foolproof guarantees.

              Liked by 1 person

            9. You Stated — “As for COVID… people with healthy immune systems will either ward it off entirely, or suffer only minor symptoms”

              My Response — But we both know that’s not true since the scientific community has not completed a census on how the virus is triggering an autoimmune response.

              What you stated is impossible to know at this time and is flat out incorrect. People with terrible health conditions have also warded off the virus with no issues. As have people in near perfect health fallen victim to it.

              The vaccine is currently the most effective tool in our box to slow the spread and intensity of the virus, and is nothing more than that.

              It’s just buying us time until we know why it can do what it does.

              But this is a moot point since me and you both agree that we should fear this virus and take any precaution needed to protect ourselves.

              Have you been vaccinated Ron?

              Do you wear a mask?

              I have and I do.

              Liked by 1 person

            10. No, the most effective tool in the box (per every health study ever done) is to keep your body healthy by eating healthy, exercising, getting adequate rest, breathing fresh air and avoiding stressful environments. The more stressors you place on your body by neglecting the above, and the longer you do it, the more you’re likely to become ill and suffer.

              In response to your questions:

              No, I have not been “vaccinated” for C-19 and don’t plan to. And no, I don’t wear masks and never have. Nor do I religiously wash my hands every time I touch something.

              Liked by 1 person

            11. You Stated — “…the most effective tool in the box (per every health study ever done) is to keep your body healthy by eating healthy, exercising…)

              My Response — That would be true for many attack vectors but not for an autoimmune sickness since it uses the body’s “Strong Immune System” to attack a “Healthy Body”.

              Just saying…. science 😉

              You Stated — “No, I have not been “vaccinated” for C-19 and… I don’t wear masks…”

              My Response — Then I’m going to need you to put on a face shield when replying to me.

              Liked by 1 person

            12. I don’t discount the fact that a certain number of people may be born genetically susceptible to developing autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, the health risks associated with maintaining a poor diet are now fairly well-established and of greater importance for the majority of the population.

              As for face shields, I’m pretty certain we’re way more than six feet apart from one another; so the social distancing measure alone should be more than adequate to keep us both protected. And since you’re double-poked and masked you should be extra safe. But if you’re still nervous, I suggest wearing latex gloves and wiping down your keyboard and monitor with antiseptic cleaners on a regular basis. That should make you coof-proof. 🙂

              Liked by 2 people

            13. You Stated — “I don’t discount the fact that a certain number of people may be born genetically susceptible to developing autoimmune diseases.”

              My Response — Your statement is correct but somewhat deceptive since autoimmune diseases are not limited to inherited genetic instruction.

              Environmental factors like exposure to chemicals or solvents are a strong factor.

              A bad diet (as you are well versed) is also a strong risk factor for developing an autoimmune disease (high-fat, high-sugar, and processed foods).

              The medical community does not have consensus, at this point in time ,on what the exact causes of many autoimmune diseases
              are. Which is why you could be at risk (at any given time).

              My Perspective –At the end of the day I believe you should do whatever you believe is best within your power to do so. I respect a strong position no matter if I agree with it or not.

              For the Record: I believe that ignorance will not suffer reason and thus people die that would have otherwise survived.

              Just Saying

              Liked by 1 person

            14. Good point! I wholeheartedly agree that exposure to environmental toxins is also a major contributing factor. Which is why I also advocate growing as much of your own food as you can and buying from local farmers who practice sustainable agriculture whenever possible for the things you can’t.

              Liked by 2 people

            15. You Stated — “buying from local farmers who practice sustainable agriculture whenever possible…”

              My Response — I agree with this practice. I find local grown food to be the best, especially when it’s from the Amish.

              We also stopped drinking alcohol and stopped eating red meat.

              Like

            16. Risk is logarithmically linked to age. You keep using death rates and comorbidities to push the false narrative that risk is more closely related to stuff you can do something about, that if you do something about these morbidities, you can reduce your risk. This is only partially true and to very small degree IN COMPARISON. But you CANNOT avoid getting older and so you CANNOT reduce your overall SOCIAL risk from infection. For that risk to be affected – and it’s the PRIMARY risk – only a mass vaccination program is effective. As I’ve explained elsewhere, it takes about 800 vaccinations to those over the age of 60 to keep ONE over the age of 60 person out of the hospital (regardless of comorbidities); it takes about 25,000 vaccinated children under the age of 12 to keep ONE person over the age of 60 out of the hospital. In other words, making vaccinations subject only to volunteer choice WILL increase not just the death rate but also increase the risk to EVERYONE no matter how healthy, no matter how few comorbidities an individual has. Your narrative about being healthy significantly reduces your risk is only partially true because you become a greater and greater risk to those people who are as healthy as you but older. It is a vicious cycle of increasing risk NEEDLESSLY that unvaccinated people are forcing on everyone. That’s why not getting vaccinated if one can get vaccinated is UNETHICAL not to mention myopic, stupid, and deeply selfish. Are we not our brother’s keeper?

              Liked by 2 people

            17. Yes, being as healthy as possible improves one’s immune system. That’s all this Pakistani paper says. This has been known forever. It does not address the algorithmic risk age presents by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, other than we already know age decreases the robustness of the immune system (which is a mixed bag of good effects and bad when it comes to developing complex symptoms AFTER infection… meaning sometimes a robust response shortens the time for life-saving medical intervention when the onset of complex symptoms can kill and cause permanent damage).

              Again, you are presenting this as if it justifies not getting vaccinated. It does do what you think it does. If you wipe your imported beliefs from this issue and just go with best evidence, the data is very clear: mass vaccinations are a highly significant and effective intervention across all age cohorts that unquestionably reduces both attributed deaths and resulting harm from the targeted virus. As the virus mutates – so far, ONLY from unvaccinated populations – these vaccinations reduce the population pool from which mutations arise.

              Liked by 1 person

            18. Again, you are engaging the conversation you would like to be having instead of the one that’s actually in motion.

              So for the umpteenth time, I never said “Don’t get vaccinated”. I said “Get your health in good order.” (paraphrased)

              Like

            19. No, you’re not JUST saying get your own health in order: you are saying doing so JUSTIFIES keeping vaccinations strictly a personal choice. On this you are wrong.

              Liked by 1 person

            20. Wrong about what? Short of those suffering from some form of physical or mental infirmity, choices concerning one’s personal health are (and should remain) a matter of individual choice. You have no more right to force vaccinations upon others than I (or others) have the right to force changes in diet and exercise routines upon you.

              Liked by 2 people

            21. What you are describing is called statute law. Common law concerns laws derived through judicial decisions concerning criminal and civil wrongs committed by one person (or group of persons) against another.

              Liked by 1 person

            22. Getting infected from you removes all choice by me. You have a duty when you swing your fist not to connect to my nose. Vaccination helps to protect my nose from other peoples irresponsible swinging of their due diligence. It may not be completely effective but it helps the noses of the entire population.

              Liked by 1 person

            23. There is no moral, legal, or medical “right” to tell others what they must, may or may not put into their bodies.

              Moreover, your entire “protection” argument becomes a moot point in light of the fact that the jabbed can spread the disease, as well, .

              Liked by 1 person

            24. My region serving ~750,000 people has 11 Covid patients in hospital, 5 in ICU. The vax rate is 100% for all hospital staff and running just shy of 85% total population. This following mandatory vaccination for almost all public workers about a month ago and almost all manufacturing implementing mandatory vaccinations. Sure, several hundred skilled workers left or were not willing to get vaccinated, but good riddance. They have no place working, eating, celebrating, or being entertained in the presence of others. That’s what a selfish ‘choice’ should look like everywhere.

              Liked by 1 person

            25. Key data missing from your report includes the following:

              – total ICU beds available in your region;
              – the exact number of patients who’d received 0, 1 and 2 doses of the vaccine; and
              – any other health complications they might have had in addition to contracting COVID.

              And your cavalier attitude towards trampling upon on the liberties of others is duly noted. In essence, it’s no different than the disdain others direct towards gays, blacks, Jews, women, the homeless and other social outcasts.

              Like

            26. Key data? You’re funny Ron. I mention these numbers to simply illustrate the effects a mass vaccination program produces, namely, significantly declining rates of infection (well below 1 now), much lower risk for everyone, a significant lifting of restrictions, and much more freedom of gathering of various communities! But apparently this result is too much like Nazi concentration camps and Soviet gulags. You think very strangely, Ron.

              Like

            27. Yes, obesity is a significant risk factor across every category of good health… including getting Covid (developing complex symptoms from a SARS-CoV-2 infection). No real medical professional is denying this to the best of my knowledge. But- again – this does not explain the logarithmic risk correlated to age.

              This correlation is actually really interesting because it means an obese 45 year old who is unvaccinated has a lower risk of getting Covid than a perfectly fit, ideal BMI, great cholesterol levels, robust immune system, no heart disease, fully vaccinated athletic 70 year old. And the correlation continues across all age cohorts to the point where the risk doubles for every 5 years regardless of other considerations that you keep raising (ad infinitum). This means very little risk even with a doubling for under 12s but highly relevant over the age of 60. The 6 years old kid can get infected, spread it to other kids and no big deal almost every time, but one infected person at an old age facility can leave a swath of dead people. That’s why it’s relevant to seriously consider the social obligation everyone has to everyone else across the age spectrum because the risk to others an infected person presents changes RADICALLY depending on the age of the person exposed. That same kid offers negligible risk to a classmate but a potentially deadly risk to a fully vaccinated person over the age of 90. Same infected person, different risk to others.

              Like

            28. Yes our bodies weaken and wear out as we age. Even fitness guru Jack LaLanne eventually succumbed to pneumonia — at the ripe old age of 96. But it doesn’t change the fact he got there following a healthy lifestyle.

              Like

            29. I fail to see the point of your argument, given that I’ve already stated (repeatedly) that the hospitalization records have revealed the risk is largely dependent on age and/or underlying health issues. So it comes as no surprise that the unhealthier you are and the longer you maintain an unhealthy lifestyle, the more likely it becomes that you’ll eventually succumb to life-threatening illness as you get older.

              And your claim that only a mass-vaccination program is the ONLY effective solution is pure bunkum, because hundreds of millions of people have already been exposed to the natural virus and built up a natural immunity to both it and successive variants, as opposed to just being protected against the one strain covered by the vaccine. The evidence of this is demonstrated by the very fact that booster injections will be necessary for the aged and vulnerable every six to eight months to address the waning efficacy of the previous injections.

              Liked by 1 person

            30. Ron says, “I fail to see the point…”

              Right. This is the problem. You presume the fault lies elsewhere for this problem. It doesn’t. It resides in your mind caused by your belief. As long as you hold the beliefs you do and think they are true, you will consistently and constantly fail to understand why you are factually wrong to presume morbidity is the risk and not the virus.

              Like

            31. Why am I not surprised to see that you’ve chosen to quote mine what I wrote wile leaving the meat of my comment unaddressed? Could it be because you are incapable of mounting a defensible data-based argument in your favo(u)r?

              Like

            32. No, it’s because your imported beliefs imposed on reality filters out the very understanding you claim you have. It’s no different, Ron, than a creationist who ‘knows better’ and will obfuscate every niggle about evolution to support that imported belief and reject any and all evidence to the contrary but skew it to mean what is desired.

              For example, the places where vaccination is about 90% unequivocally have every measurable metric demonstrating that these populations fare far better than a similar population that does not. Furthermore, the lower that percentage, the higher the numbers of Covid-related complexities. This is not open to debate nor subject to any serious qualifications; it’s just a fact. Now, actual numbers vary and the effectiveness of this vaccine can be compared to that vaccine and, over time, these numbers do indeed change, and so on. In other words, there’s a forest of data here. But like with climate change deniers who try to obfuscate clear trends with selective data that can made to APPEAR to go against the trend, you do exactly the same thing over and over and over.

              So it really is a question of figuring WHY you continue to fail to understand and spend so much amateur effort trying to pretend every major medical organization with vast expertise is wrong. I mean, seriously… That really should be a clue to someone who honestly desires to understand something. You obviously don’t. Instead, you want to get lost in the forest of data and think yourself informed because you think you’re finding what only supports your already petrified beliefs. This doesn’t surprise me; it’s no different than the earnest creationist believer or climate change denier. You have fooled yourself and think it it is therefore ethical to try to fool others.

              Like

            33. You realize that long comments don’t disguise the fact that what you are presenting is all fluff and no substance. The links to the health reports from Israel and the UK paint an entirely different picture than the one you are attempting to present — namely they show that over the long haul the effectiveness of the “vaccines” wanes most for the elderly and vulnerable, no matter how many people get jabbed.

              Liked by 1 person

            34. See? There you go again, selecting what you believe supports your opinion. Yes, vaccines wane BECAUSE of time. Different kinds of vaccines have different timelines. The mRNA has a short span BECAUSE it’s so targeted. You conflate this to mean it demonstrates increased risk. But the risk is from the VIRUS first and foremost, so, if your population is widely vaccinated, your chances of encountering the virus is drastically smaller than if a non vaccinated population spreads the virus without interference. You advocate for the second and pretend the risk is related only to comorbidities. This is absolute and utter BULLSHIT. The risk is related to encountering the VIRUS. This risk is compounded by AGE, which doubles with every 5 year cohort. This is why a fully vaccinated person who is 75 and in otherwise perfect health is at MUCH higher risk than the obese 45 years old person with a heart condition.

              What you spectacularly fail to grasp is that it is the unvaccinated person alters this risk that everyone else has to face because the LIKLIHOOD of an unvaccinated person carrying the virus is about 100 times greater than from a vaccinated person. But you don’t care about ANY these facts; instead, you’ll get busy busy busy searching the internet for information that you think denies or calls into questions or offer some reason to doubt these facts. That’s why what you think is being driven not by reality, not by expertise, not by good interpretation of relevant data, but by YOUR CONTRARY BELIEF. And in order to maintain this foolishness you believe is the case, you will relegate the medical consensus to be some kind of conspiracy. If your contrary beliefs and willingness to doubt facts weren’t so dangerous to others, your foolishness and egoism wouldn’t matter to me. I’m pretty foolish about certain things myself. But when you try to present your denialism as if well informed and valid to doubt public health policy, I feel obligated to call a spade a spade.

              Liked by 1 person

            35. Once again I’m compelled to remind you that you’ve ignored what I’ve actually written in order to argue against points I’ve never made. At no point in this conversation have I ever stated, suggested, hinted or implied that the short time spans mean it demonstrates an increased risk.

              What I have stated (in many ways and many forms) is this: focus on improving your overall health to diminish the risk of acquiring chronic and debilitating age-related illnesses that are excaerbated by viral infections because the vaccines alone are a poor substitute for mitigating against diseases you could have avoided getting entirely by making changes to your lifestyle. Naturally, if you’ve reached the end of the road, health-wise, the vaccines and/or expensive medical interventions will become the only options available to remedy the situation. But it needn’t have to be that way if you take proven preventative measures from the outset.

              Why you’ve chosen to ignore sound health advice and turn this into a personal vendetta against me, escapes comprehension.

              Liked by 1 person

            36. Part of the issue here is you fail to see your arguments are heavily directed by belief as well. I would probably give Ron the edge in this discussion based on the presented facts and the actual mortality rate and the entirety of the “pandemic” that from the get-go has been heavily panic influenced from month one by the amount of available beds that were near capacity as always. That’s been the isssue and it’s not really a fair one to impose martial law on the population.

              Like

            37. No. This isn’t an ‘argument’ between a few people with differing viewpoints, Jim. This either standing up and facing reality or trying to believe it’s different than what it is. That’s the only ‘choice’ going on here.

              How soon we forget.

              Like

            38. Actually, as I have watched this debate you have illustrated as much belief as any believer. Every single differing study of contrary evidence has been heavily discounted and deduced to rubbish by the status quo—that same status quo that has the world exactly where it is today.
              The real questions are existential fears and freedoms. For many life isn’t worth living under the thumb of big brother. For others the fear of death drives some to protect life at any unreasonable cost, only to watch every single one of them die later in the blink of geologic time. You may be an atheist, but you are very religious my friend. The force (hebrew influence) is strong in this one Obiwan..

              Like

            39. How about this forgotten little gem out of Spain in April or 2020:

              “20 March.

              Of 218,652 COVID-19 cases, 45.4% were hospitalised, 4.6% were admitted to ICU and 11.9% died. Among those who died, 94.8% had at least one underlying disease. Healthcare workers (HCWs) represented 22.9% of cases.”

              And almost all of us have an underlying disease, whether diagnosed or not.

              Liked by 1 person

            40. What I’ve seen and heard, Jim, is this pandemic roar into the West and public health scramble to try to cope while considering the needs of economy and supply and income. That’s why I sent in the reminder of these reports at the time. Now, things like mass vaccination programs, for example, have to planned using best available data at the time.

              So here’s the thing: put yourself in the position of having to recommend policy when you are receiving information like that from Italy and Spain in March and April of 2020. Hear about the various vaccine efficacies as trials are being done and consider the various costs and how they can dispersed and over what timeline and to what effect – best and worst case scenarios. Now stick Ron’s opinion in these decision-making places and you get literally tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of premature deaths YOU are professionally responsible for preventing if possible and THEN try to live with that result, thinking ‘natural immunity’ is the way to go because, hey, here’s some data about longitudinal effectiveness comparing survivor immunity versus vaccinated a year post vaccine. Ron’s notion is morally indefensible in the same way putting out a fire once a building is gutted and smoldering is much safer and more effective than trying to stop the fire at its zenith, so why bother even trying? It’s a conspiracy, donchaknow. What’s lost following Ron’s advice are these lives and those affected by them that’s a price Ron is more than willing for everyone else to pay in order to be free from social obligation to get vaccinated. As long as it doesn’t impinge on HIS freedom to do as he likes today, of course. Then it’s a threat to democracy, you see. That threat to his fREeDom versus the threat so many lives affected, is just too dear for HIM to pay.

              Good grief.

              In other words, I understand this has been a process not organized or orchestrated but a group of dedicated professionals across the medical world trying their very best to do a very difficult ever-changing job filled with uncertainty but loaded with necessity. Now throw in a variant of concern, then two, then three. How might any of us have done better?

              Liked by 1 person

            41. The medical establishments may very well be offering g their best foot, but it has and is more a political grab than a medical offering.

              Like

            42. It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society—J Krishnamurti
              We are demanded now to risk our lives to benefit those who have already lived theirs, or to those who live it poorly. But really from day 1 this has been a knee jerk based on the fear of bed shortages from an already sick society.

              Like

            43. You are missing the point. I don’t care about the covid risk that someone else want to take for themselves. So what?

              Like

            44. I understand. This is part of the issue: it’s NOT personal, it’s PUBLIC. In other words, it’s fine to get vaccinated for one’s self – lots of good mitigating reasons to do so. But I think the primary duty is for the safety of others. That’s the main role and reason for mass vaccination: you get vaccinated for others because it reduces the risk YOU present to them.

              Liked by 1 person

            45. Oh, and the same is true for masking. The surgeon puts it on not protect him- or herself from you the patient but to protect you the patient from him or her.

              Like

            46. Not really true. He masks to protect himself as well from body fluids and blood spatter? You ever stand in on orthopedic surgery? They even wear a hood to protect themselves.

              Like

            47. From an abstract on the use of surgical masks during surgery:

              It has never been shown that wearing surgical face masks decreases postoperative wound infections. On the contrary, a 50% decrease has been reported after omitting face masks. The present study was designed to reveal any 30% or greater difference in general surgery wound infection rates by using face masks or not.

              During 115 weeks, a total of 3,088 patients were included in the study. Weeks were denoted as “masked” or “unmasked” according to a random list. After 1,537 operations performed with face masks, 73 (4.7%) wound infections were recorded and, after 1,551 operations performed without face masks, 55 (3.5%) infections occurred. This difference was not statistically significant (p greater than 0.05) and the bacterial species cultured from the wound infections did not differ in any way, which would have supported the fact tha the numerical difference was a statistically “missed” difference.

              These results indicated that the use of face masks might be reconsidered. Masks may be used to protect the operating team from drops of infected blood and from airborne infections, but have not been proven to protect the patient operated by a healthy operating team.

              Tunevall, T.G. Postoperative wound infections and surgical face masks: A controlled study. World J. Surg. 15, 383–387 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01658736

              https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1853618

              Like