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?
TheCommonAtheist 
The first point to make is that, with a couple of exceptions, utilitarian bioethics supposedly went out of fashion in 1945. That’s because they were used to justify, initially, Aktion T4 – the extermination of German psychiatric patients – and, ultimately, the Holocaust. So you shouldn’t be building bioethics out of hubristically presumed outcomes. As you say, “Who knows where any of this will go from here?”.
It’s not like it’s a Nazi thing either. The thesis of ‘life unworthy of life’ was originally laid down by the humanist psychiatrist and utilitarian moral philosopher Alfred Hoche and his conservative lawyer colleague Karl Binding in 1920, when Weimar Germany was considered one of the most progressive and enlightened nations on earth and the Nazi party had less than 200 members and was almost unknown outside Nuremberg. When the Nazis began applying it to disabled children in their euthanasia program the American Psychiatric Association debated exterminating US mental patients too, with the editorial position of their newsletter being that the main function of psychiatry should be to help families deal with the trauma of signing off the lives of their ‘defective’ members. After all, eugenics and racial hygiene theory were the ‘best science’ of the day. Contemporary utilitarian philosopher (and the son of Holocaust survivors) Peter Singer has come to the same conclusions as Hoche regarding the extermination of substandard infants, so it seems to be something intrinsic in the culture and methodology of utilitarianism.
So the Nuremberg Code mandates that medical ethics should be predicated on publicly enunciated principles, not consequentialist algorithms, with the main exception being triage, whereby scarce medical resources are allocated according to where they are most likely to reduce mortality and morbidity. In democratic societies those principles should be a matter of public debate, informed by experts but decided by mandate, with no group or individuals having disproportionate influence.
Unfortunately democracy is a very rare bird, with most of the world now living under a supranational plutocracy. People don’t vote for anything important. Money does.
Regarding medicine, that money generally comes from the pockets of Big Pharma (as demonstrated by the recent wrist-slap allocated the Sacklers for starting the opioid epidemic for fun and profit). So public bioethics are the private property of a few huge drug companies and what’s ‘ethical’ is essentially what’s profitable to them.
Biden knows which side his bread is buttered on. If he didn’t he wouldn’t be where he is.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Do you trust politicians? Do you trust scientists? Do you trust capitalism?
We have a drug made by capitalism science, approved and mandated by the government, which btw, is the same structure that brought us thalidomide, bextra, and vioxx. Pick your poison.
LikeLike
Nah, I trust my own assessment of the evidence and my epistemological nihilism.
Gets me into a lot of trouble that. But at least it’s my trouble and not someone else’s I picked up and paid for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Democracy has been described as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. In essence, it’s no better than any other form of government; and in practice, it may probably be worse. The solution is not to replace one form of government with another — it’s to abandon the mistaken notion that we need rulers altogether.
Regarding the Sacklers:
“this is essentially a crime family … drug dealers in nice suits and dresses.”~Paul Hanly (litigation attorney)
LikeLiked by 2 people
We do not “need” government, and to me it is one of the 4 (so far) worst-ever inventions of humanity. Government denies people the ability to learn how to be responsible for themselves, at the same time as keeping people from being free to choose who their neighbours will be. Nations, like religions, divide and conquer (our ability to live together as one people on our one planet).
The other worst ever inventions: gods, including God; gold, giving value to something which has no real value, meaning money; and guns, meaning “any” weapon that can be used to kill other living beings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So you are arguing that mandated vaccination known to be highly effective against a known communicable pathogen, one that we know claims the same rate of casualties today as a World Trade Center every two days, is equivalent to eugenic bioethics? You are arguing that doing nothing and allowing the deaths of thousands upon thousands of citizens every week is ethically sound but mandating a reduction of this unnecessary cost by vaccination is like killing vulnerable people in Nazi Germany?
Seriously?
I can find no sense in this framing, other than allow a pandemic to continue causing needless harm and suffering potentially without end as the ripe conditions to mutate are allowed to go unfettered. But you are good with this.
I want you to explain to Cheri Witwiky why it’s okay for her mom to die in the waiting room of her hospital while unvaccinated people use up all of the resources. How this is ethical. I want you to explain to her why those requiring medical attention for unrelated issues rank lower so that unvaccinated people can continue to dominate all of health care. You can also explain to her the ethics of allowing this pandemic free rein to exhaust nurses and doctors to the point of quitting their professions, that this is all for the good and that her mom’s death is a price you are willing to inflict on her by withholding your support for mandatory vaccinations… all in the name of what you think are principled ethics.
I think something’s not right here in your thinking, something that is leading you to a conclusion guaranteed to produce massive casualties in the name of avoiding compulsion. You think compulsion is unethical in regards to an effective vaccine but these casualties ethical. That seems to me to be arguing the tail has every right to wag the dog.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Firstly I was making no comment on whether or not mandatory vaccination is ethical, just about whether utilitarianism is an appropriate tool for building public bioethics. In that I was doing no more than stating the consensus position among bioethicists since WWII.
But I think your approach illustrates quite well why utilitarian bioethics are morally and intellectually bankrupt. You blame the unvaccinated for the strain on health resources and workers and identify mandatory vaccination as the solution to the problem, as if cause and effect is a linear chain of simplistic inevitabilities. Having identified your scapegoats you then propose punishing them by deprioritising them for healthcare, as if that too would have the single effect of improving the health system by turning it into an arm of the penal system. In doing so you’re no different to the ex-president who seemed to think vilifying ‘the Chinese’ was an appropriate response to the crisis.
Really there are myriad reasons health workers are under strain, including the idiotic capitalist health care system that prevails in the West in which stockmarkets reward owners who minimise staffing levels and ensures jobs in caring industries are far more poorly rewarded than sociopathic work that facilitates upwards distribution of wealth and power. But strangely enough I don’t hear you proposing withdrawing healthcare from stockbrokers, corporate politicians, free market lobbyists, etc, who are more to blame for America’s pathetic response to the crisis than are those reluctant to take vaccines.
Or perhaps you’d like to direct me to statements you’ve made calling for punitive sanctions against the Sacklers and their ilk, whose profit seeking actions led to an opioid epidemic that’s killed about the same number of Americans as COVID has so far.
And that’s the inevitable problem with utilitarian public health ethics. You can only make utilitarianism work by artificially limiting the causes and effects you examine in a way that doesn’t reflect the real world at all. And because of how power works in the real world that always means an authoritarian elite will have the final say on what the relevant causes and effects are and who needs to be scapegoated and punished. Remember the utilitarian arguments about ‘mushroom clouds over US cities’ that justified the slaughter of thousands of people in Iraq to protect us from non-existent WMDs? That’s how utilitarianism works when you take it out of highly constrained ‘trolley problems’ and plant it in the real world. And it’s always the refuge of people like yourself who can’t accept how little they can know and control the future and so look for someone to blame and punish when reality falls short of what they think it should be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
When you feel you have confirmed your bias here to your own satisfaction, I urge you to go volunteer a few hours a week at your local hospital. Because, unlike every medical expert in the world, you know better and your know this virus is mostly benign. So go doo some good. I guarantee it will put your confirmation bias on life support.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry for the typos. My keyboard is acting up. It also remains unvaccinated from my errors. Bummer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where do I say the virus is benign tildeb? Seems to me you know what I ‘think’ better than I do. I never even knew I believed it was benign until you pointed it out to me.
You’ve gotta make a heck of a lot of shit up to maintain your own feeling of superiority, don’t you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the religious aspect today’s science, where there is little compassion for those fearful of compliance.
LikeLike
Yeah, it’s Scientism.
For a while I was taking on an entire online community who called themselves ‘Science Based Medicine’ without any of them having more than a fanboy grasp of what science is. And of course it was primarily about asserting the borrowed authority of ‘Science’ against others, in the same way their ideological ancestors would have borrowed the authority of an imaginary God to put themselves at His right hand.
Apparently comparing themselves to people who believe in crystal healing and the power of prayer was the only way they could make themselves feel smart. The problem was they wanted to leverage that into a technocratic regime where faithful fanboys like themselves get to tell everyone else what to do.
Remind you of anyone?
LikeLiked by 1 person
BTW, when I’m not practically confined to my house by a ‘benign’ virus that routinely kills people of my age, gender and medical status I do voluntary work with an organisation that supports psychiatric patients attempting to live in the community. Not the worried well either. The ones who struggle to stay clear of full time institutional care and mind destroying medications.
That’s one reason I know a thing or two about the abuse of the vulnerable that arises from utilitarian bioethics, though I’ve gotta admit I don’t often run across people who openly advocate such abuse without at least a thin veil of therapeutic justification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
IMO, tildeb was focusing on one aspect of this pandemic … the practicality of vaccinations. Yes, he went on to mention the strain being put on healthcare workers, but you have taken it to a higher level when you bring in the “capitalist health care system.” Certainly it plays a role, but I felt that tildeb was primarily referencing real people who are being pushed to their limits because so many of those seeking care have used their “rights” as the “prime directive.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I was just making a general observation about utilitarianism.
Cause and effect in the real world doesn’t run in a nice neat line from A to B to C then stop like it does in the simplistic linear thinking of consequentialists. It spreads out in all directions like ripples in a pond (or shockwaves from a supernova) and keeps having consequences indefinitely.
So fingering a particular discrete cause – such as vaccine hesitancy – for a general effect – such as breakdown of the health system in the face of pandemic – is simply a reflection of blinkered bias and the need to reduce a complex universe into something small and simple enough to get your head around.
In tildeb’s case it’s also driven by a much nastier need to find acceptable scapegoats to blame and punish for his own inability to control what he believes he should control. Drug companies, health authorities and capitalism are too big and complicated to take on and they have the resources to fight back. So tildeb proposes punishing a few simple-minded folk who’ve fallen for anti-vax crap (as opposed to simple-minded authoritarian folk like him who fall for whatever the authorities tell him). And in the process he gets to feel superior to a whole bunch of straw men he’s created and gets a brief taste of the sense of control he craves.
And he thinks that’s ‘ethics’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m often at odds with things that tildeb puts forth, but in this case, I have to disagree with your analysis. Further, if I’m not mistaken, I think he’s related or close to someone who works in the health field (a hospital?) and that most likely influences his approach to the pandemic and its spread.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then why does he keep making stuff up to try to assert his technical authority and patch his threadbare arguments?
Why does he propose punishing a relatively powerless group instead of supporting health workers?
Does he really think he can help his rellie by being an arsehole?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t burst his illusions, Nan. He’s built a nice straw man of me to dismiss the facts I bring forward he doesn’t like.
And yes, my spouse worked in the office of the Minister of Health for the Minister and was part of the small team of medical experts that formulated CIHI data into policy recommendations revised by funding decisions. These members past and present remain in close contact. The job was very stressful prior to the pandemic but certainly informed by real world data. And that’s what I’m trying to portray here: the real world data speaks of what is really going on across a very wide spectrum of medical concerns that uses public funds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my opinions, even though I think non vaccinated people should go to the end of the line rather than bump people who have done their civic duty. But that’s neither here nor there, although I know many frontline workers espouse exactly the same sentiment, so sick and tired are they of dealing with so many unvaccinated desperately ill people and for such a long time with no end in sight. They know this carries a greater cost than many people know, a cost paid for by people who cannot access a needed ICU bed for things like treatments and surgeries unrelated to Covid. They really are suffering and dying from these other causes that does not show up as a Covid-caused death. That’s why I continue to urge people to talk to these frontline workers because they are the real world starting point for all the accumulated data.
That’s why I know ICU beds, for example, has undergone a radical funding shift and the number of beds currently dedicated to trying to meet the rising need. That’s why, for example, I mentioned the increased funding for additional trained ICU nurses in early 2020 because the data showed a rising need that was not going to be met by current staffing levels. It’s very complex to increase ICU bed capacity because it has all kinds of negative impacts across the rest of the healthcare system. And the fact that the number was increased five fold and is STILL inadequate… enough to justify the funding for field hospital capacity… speaks loudly of what is really going on.
Right now, for example, hospitals in Canada run between 75%-99% of all these massively increased number of ICU beds for unvaccinated Covid patients. That speaks to what is going on in reality. As is the increasing frustration of these highly trained and desperately needed ICU nurses; their numbers are dropping in spite of the concerted effort and ample funding to train more, pay them more. It’s a hell of job when every day and almost every bed in thee ICU unit and rededicated beds as ICU beds is filled by people who are unvaccinated. These numbers would be a fraction if more people got vaccinated. That is what’s true. That’s how this works. That’s what reality shows. That’s what all these staff will tell people what is actually going on at these hospitals. They will tell you how other services have to be cancelled and why… to make room for more unvaccinated Covid patients. And none of this has anything to do with me or my opinions. It’s just the way things are.
So when people presume all of this is somehow a product of my opinion, they are wrong. I’m simply looking through a window of trustworthy data and I understand from my spouse how this data then tailors policy recommendation responses and justifies the allocated funding. If the need were not present, the data would show this. It’s just this simple.
But vaccinations are the bigger problem in the minds of those who assume they know better than real world data, know better than real life experts in these matters, know better than all these policy makers, all these frontline workers. That alone tells you the extent of the confirmation bias hard at work; it’s so stupid when arbitrated by reality that it isn’t even stupid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So which ‘trustworthy data’ informed you that vaccine induced myocarditis is “IMMEDIATELY treatable on site!”?
What Minister of Health research program told you I think coronavirus is benign?
Was it CIHI data that informed policy that masks were unnecessary to control a respiratory virus while there was a shortage of them only to suddenly ‘discover’ they worked after all when scarce supplies no longer had to be hoarded for front line health workers?
Are Canadian health authorities following the lead of their international counterparts in claiming there’s some kind of threshold community vaccination level beyond which it will be safe to end lockdowns, despite evidence from multiple jurisdictions that doing so results in an immediate significant rise in infection rates, hospitalisations, deaths and health system failures?
Are you ignoring the data showing most COVID deaths in England’s collapsing hospital system are now among the vaccinated because it doesn’t fit your preferred narrative?
Or are you just repeating the mantra of authorities across the world that individuals who don’t get vaccinated (even the ones who are doing their darnedest to in the face of botched rollout programs) are to blame for the repeated failures of both short and long term health policy we’ve seen over the past 18 months?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The article goes on to say “here’s why that shouldn’t alarm you”. There is an explanation for everything, even why some butterflies have eyes on their wings, and any explanation will do.
LikeLike
What is the worth difference between a vaccinated and non vaccinated person who is hospitalized? You know where this leads I’m sure, that no admission of any kind would be afforded to someone uncomfortable with vaccines, not just covid related illness, but any. It’s already beginning. Here’s a couple of reasons; they don’t trust science any farther than making a few gadgets, and your failure to understand their religion should actually help you understand why they don’t believe you and your data.
LikeLike
This frustration by healthcare workers about having the unvaccinated take up most of the ICU beds is based on something, Jim. What might that be? They have no equivalent frustration with anything else, save perhaps guns and drugs and booze. So that ‘something’ is not manufactured by capitalist pharmaceutical or insurance companies regarding Covid. I mean, come on Jim: THINK. What might be the trigger for this widespread and growing frustration?
That trigger is an understanding that so much of this IS preventable. That’s not my opinion. That’s reality.
There will be a series of increasing restrictions for those able but unwilling to get vaccinated. This is basic public health. Sure, I think the unvaccinated should be last in line for all kinds of public services including healthcare access here in Canada, but that’s not going to happen because that’s not how our healthcare works. It is based strictly on need. This is why more and more frontline nurses and doctors are quitting; they know nothing is going to change without mandatory vaccinations and they didn’t get into healthcare to decide who should live and who should die, who deserves what, making calls to family when yet another unvaccinated Covid patient dies. These kinds of daily activities suck the souls out of the best of us. Healthcare frontline workers are not immune. But they do have to deal with reality-deniers all the time not just in the ICU beds but outside the hospitals waving their placards, throwing debris at the workers, and impeding traffic.
I don’t have the figures at hand for how many times lower is the rate of hospitalization for vaccinated people. I know it varies based on a multitude of factors. But I do know the RATE is at least 10 times less than it is for the unvaccinated. Now, that’s hospitalizations.
When you need intubation, that becomes Intensive Care and special beds are used that has an assortment of specialized medical devices. As of this morning, I read that about 7% of all ICU patients in my province fully vaccinated have Covid. Also, the survival rate is about 10 times higher than it is for the unvaccinated (and this is significant for several reasons I won’t go into). So the data can be summarized as follows: vaccination keeps the number of positive cases in the community much lower than they are for the unvaccinated; vaccination keeps the number of hospital admissions much lower than they are for the unvaccinated; vaccination keeps the number of patients requiring ICU beds much lower than they are for the unvaccinated. Now, these numbers that inform the rates constantly fluctuate even as numbers rise and fall by day, by week, by month, by community rates, and so on. But here’s the take-away: vaccination basically divides the potential rates of adverse stuff from Covid three times over. That means your chances of getting Covid is much lower DIVIDED by the rate of hospitalization DIVIDED by severe symptoms. In a square block chart per hundred thousand people (10K X 10K), the rate of Covid runs about 15-20% per month per hundred thousand. Vaccinated people runs about 4-5% per month per hundred thousand (and this rate is rising, which is alarming because it really means our vaccination efforts are being slowly undone by those who refuse to get vaccinated and therefore allow all these rates to rise over time).
Unvaccinated people requiring hospitalization runs about 15% of those who have Covid versus about .01% of vaccinated people who get it. Unvaccinated people who then require ICU beds runs about 15% of those hospitalized. Vaccinated people already hospitalized who then require ICU beds is about the 1% of them. So at each stage, vaccinated people have less risk of catching Covid, lower risk of developing sever symptoms, and lower rates requiring ICU beds. What mitigates these numbers is that very often the breakthrough cases for people vaccinated who need the additional hospitalization and ICU support are those already severely compromised in other ways (this is one of the reasons the survival rate I mentioned earlier shouldn’t be as high as it is if the compromises themselves were the reason for a higher likelihood of dying WITH Covid versus dying FROM Covid). Anyway, this skews the numbers for a fair comparison, in that the rates are actually LOWER for the average person vaccinated to need an ICU bed fi they get Covid. But at every turn, no matter what numbers arise, the TREND is always one directional: vaccinations are an effective way to LOWER – not eliminate – lower the risk of Covid and its more severe symptoms for people and those they come in contact with. Every single line of evidence shows the same trend. This would not be the case if vaccinations caused the kind of harm so often touted by anti-vaxers.
Now things like myocarditis and pericarditis are as I’m sure you know infections – in the heart for the former and heart sac for the later. It is absolutely treatable. And yes, the rates for these infections is higher for teenage boys and yes, it is associated less with with first than it is with the second doses of vaccinations and the association is stronger the less time between the shots. Bad news for vaccinations, am I right? Well, let’s see…
So how often does this happen? Well, at a rate of about .000004% (4 in a million). What is the rate for Covid in this population? About .00163% (1603 per million). In other words, the rates of heart effects even if caused by vaccination (and it probably is a developing immune system’s response to some aspect of the vaccination I think, but that’s just my opinion that has no real value to anyone, I know) is far less than the risk of getting Covid and about developing severe symptoms. This does not alter in any meaningful way the overall trend already mentioned of great benefit by vaccination even though these kinds of non-equivalent datum are the mainstay of anti-vaxers and realty deniers and their Masters (who would want a population to harm itself by spreading such dis- and misinformation, other than say China or Russia?). Without these rare outliers to cause confusion and sew doubt, they’ve got nuthin’ except the gullibility of those who want to think the worst of those trying their best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“This frustration by healthcare workers about having the unvaccinated take up most of the ICU beds is based on something”,
It is also based on government overreach.
“ 1 in 6 healthcare employees would rather quit than get vaccinated” There are local protests here regarding that. That is not why I quit paramedicine, but because it was already overtaxing physically and mentally long before the pandemic. This system is far more muddled than a few unvaxxed people. I walked away.
It is also based on how poorly a facilitated Canadian healthcare has no room for this in an already lagging system.
I don’t see life as being this serious. Plus I’ve been fooled much of my life by the passionate urgencies of belief. I am not anti vax, but I understand why many are. I agree with much of your comment but also see as Cabrogal stated, this isn’t really a linear problem. There is more at play than covid tipping the apple cart.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Maybe politicians – maybe even the Canadian Health Minister – encouraging everyone to find fault with each other rather than the systemic, long-term under-resourcing and maladministration of our health systems that brought them to the verge of collapse well before the advent of COVID tipped them over? Maybe as a result of policies enacted by precisely the same ‘authorities’ we’re repeatedly told to blindly trust in and who are now looking to sheet home the blame to anyone except themselves?
It’s called ‘divide and rule’, tildeb. It’s long been perhaps most the successful policy of oppressive and exploitative authorities regardless of the government or economic system underpinning them.
LikeLike
I’m still waiting for those numbers tildeb.
– How many ICU beds were there before and how many are there now?
– How many beds per 100k?
– How many cases have preexisting health problems?
If you’re really in the know, these numbers should be easy to provide.
LikeLike
Go to town, Ron.
LikeLike
I’m asking for the numbers in your neck of the woods,
LikeLike
The report reveals that Canada’s publicly-funded health care system is not what it’s cracked up to be. It not only confirms that ICU beds were already in short supply over seven years ago, but goes on to predict that an aging population with severe end-of-life illnesses would strain the system even further in coming year and create delays or cancellations for elective surgeries and unplanned emergencies.
I checked how many ICU beds there were in Alberta and was shocked to discover they have only 276 beds to serve a population of over 4.4 million people — a number so paltry that even a small disaster would overwhelm the system.
So the real problem isn’t unvaccinated patients, but poor planning and policy decisions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
For what it’s worth, Washington has nearly 10 times the beds of Alberta and currently at 90% to 95% capacity with covid admissions 85% unvaccinated. Staff is beyond burned out and with school just starting it seems to be blowing up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not arguing that the U.S. health care system is all that much better — just that the so-called public health care systems are not as utopian as they are made out to be.
More importantly, the same problems outlined in that report have been identified as a future global problem in many other for almost two decades. Here’s an abstract from 2004:
https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(15)32119-X/pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
Certainly the writing is on the wall with the nursing shortage. I dealt with this off and on as a medic for years.
I worked in California during a medic shortage during the Pasadena fires. It was common to wait 2 hours in the hall with a trauma patient. Tildebs situation is much more dire at this point than most of the USA, so I understand his panic. It is unfortunate but perfectly normal for people to decide the way they do. Having both vaccinated and unvaccinated certainly makes the game more intense. Brilliant, really!
LikeLike
The other shoe is about to drop, as well. The annual report of the Social Security Board of Trustees states that the annual cost of running the program will exceed total income beginning in 2021, and that the reserve trust fund will be depleted by 2057.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/trust-funds-summary.html
One is tempted to wonder if COVID was an orchestrated event to clear the decks of all the current and upcoming “useless eaters” (aka aging baby boomers). But that might be construed as crazy conspiracy talk.
LikeLike
But that might be construed as crazy conspiracy talk
[nods from the back row]
LikeLiked by 2 people
I find it more likely that nature is self regulating. We think we can do an end-around by planning and intervention (or even conspiracy) but that too, is no different than any other aspect of nature. You think you can outsmart it, but you is it. You are what nature does. I think you may give far too much credit in thinking humans can do anything but what they do. We see it play out over and over, just different tools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Duly noted! And in the case of humans, the “self-regulating” feature appears to be the primal brain which often overrides the thinking one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s easy to overthink anything, which particular thoughts are a byproduct of the environment we have an affinity to. The fact is humanity is improving by nearly every metric. Why? Is it beliefs that have this going or is it science? Is it conservative conspiracism that is doing it?
So far every advance in human longevity and equality has been opposed by one side or the other, yet here we are getting it better every day. Mixing science and politics with religion, conspiracy, and fear, must have the innovators shaking their heads. The engine moves forward and the baggage car gets heavier, yet we persist.
LikeLike
Based on my observations, overthinking things is not a widespread problem; and especially in the US. If anything, it appears we have the exact opposite: an extreme paucity of critical thinking skills. People prefer to leave everything up to the “experts” and do what they are told, rather than conduct a thorough investigation for themselves.
LikeLike
Yep. And having a vilified minority of unvaccinated people in the population during a pandemic gives health authorities the perfect scapegoats to deflect blame from their own neglect and incompetence.
Here in Australia it’s particularly stark. The government botched the vaccine rollout in multiple ways and most unvaccinated people want to be vaccinated but haven’t been able to get it (I’d been trying to get vaccinated since early June when I finally got my first shot a couple of weeks ago and I’m in the second highest priority group).
But Australian authorities are still flat out blaming and threatening the mostly unwillingly unvaccinated for the increasing cascade of failures in the health system and to distract from their own failure to implement rational lock-down regulations (e.g. by granting exemptions to non-essential industries with powerful lobbying arms).
And just to put the icing on the cake, they’ve also fucked up the implementation of the vaccination database. So many people who have been vaccinated are recorded as unvaccinated while others seeking vaccines are being refused because the database says they already had them.
LikeLike
The advisory body (forgot the name) really blew it when they cautioned against getting Astra Zeneca. That was a blunder of astronomical proportions. Morrison then blew it when he didn’t blast the crap of them for it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ICU beds funded today ~2000 projected to be 5000 by December (reference). Notice that this base today is about 5 times the normal amount projected from December 2018. And it is being increased.
There is always great variability in ICU capacity based on many provincial factors. There are also various transfer mechanisms and agreements for funding between the federal government and provinces because the provinces are responsible for healthcare. But overall and because of the pandemic, capacity has been dramatically increased.
Now, it seems to me that you and facts have an uneasy alliance in the sense that you only want data that supports your belief and will spend not only your time and energy seeking this confirmation but demand the same from others. I am willing to give you what I think serves the point and only that: ICU bed funding has increased about 5 fold in the past year and will be increased more in the next few months as a RESPONSE SPECIFICALLY to rising case numbers of Delta. You are trying to paint a false picture, that the number of ICU beds was too low at the start of 2019 and so these increases are enough to get us to where they ought to have been all along. That is unmitigated bullshit. It’s a typical tactic used by climate change deniers to utilize only data that SEEMS to support a contrary view which is immediately ejected and rejected if it doesn’t fit the false narrative. And this is a never-ending tactic I will not play with you. You will always find something in all data sets to pretend your rejection of reality is reasonable. It isn’t. It is intentional dis-and misinformation. That’s why I keep saying go talk to frontline workers in the ICU departments of your local hospitals and find out why vaccination is the medical consensus.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not what I asked for, so once again:
– How many ICU beds were there in your area before and how many are there in your area now?
– How many beds per 100k in your area?
– How many cases have preexisting health problems in your area?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is Biden’s mandate ethical or legal? Maybe?
Ethical? Yes. We mandate various practices in the name of safety – seat belts, OSHA regulations for industry, wearing safety equipment like hard hats, special shoes and clothing, breathing apparatus, etc. to prevent injury and death in certain circumstances. Why would a virus be any different than any other hazard? It isn’t. We’ve been mandating vaccines under certain circumstances since they were first developed to protect people.
Is it legal? Probably not. I don’t see how the president has the authority to govern by some kind of royal decree, which is exactly what a lot of these so-called ‘executive orders’ seem to be over the last few decades. Congress is supposed to make the laws, not the president. The executive branch of the government doesn’t make the law, Congress does, or is supposed to.
He’s making a mistake here. This might push more people to get vaccinated, but what it will really do in the long run is give more ammunition to the extremists.
Your last paragraph is spot on. Crowding billions of people into slum like conditions or worse, inadequate medical care, inadequate diets, poverty, overcrowding, etc. is indeed one of the root causes of things like this. How that can be fixed — I have no idea.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I should add that I don’t blame Biden for what he’s doing. He’s merely doing what the last half dozen or so presidents have had to do because Congress continues to fail to actually do its job. For decades now Congress has been yielding more and more authority to the executive branch because it refuses to man up and take responsibility. Permitting the president to act unilaterally permits them to look like they’re doing something but if and when something goes wrong they can lay the blame on the president’s office.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What troubles me is capitalism science. This is the same structure (on steroids) that brought us thalidomide, bextra, and vioxx. I trust science. I don’t trust all three treating every single outbreak like it’s emergent you take their pill.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s specifically capitalist science that’s the problem, though I’m not usually an apologist for capitalism.
Science has outgrown individual boffins and is now the property of institutions. Doesn’t matter what sort. Institutions might be made of people but they ain’t people and don’t have human survival imperatives or human ethics. That’s why the people who constitute them typically clock off their morality when they clock on as components; whether they’re the cleaner, the CEO, the commanding officer, the coach or the commissar.
Do you suppose institutions are conscious and wonder if they have free will?
LikeLike
And that’s the rub with consequentialism.
Assuming there is such a thing as free will – because without it all ethical considerations are meaningless – then each decision is a ‘first cause’; something new in the universe which isn’t just the inevitable effect of all that preceded it.
But cause and effect is endless, except inasmuch it slowly decays due to entropy. So Biden’s authoritarianism today might save lives tomorrow but at the cost of many more lives later as people push back against the removal of their freedoms. Or maybe it will continue to save lives for decades, only to eventually result in an even greater worldwide mortality due to population overload. It’s like the Chinese proverb of the horse farmer.
So basically whatever ‘currency’ you nominate to calculate consequentialist moral value – be it human lives, the viability of the biosphere, the greatest happiness for the greatest number, corporate balance sheets, whatever – the inevitable effect of ‘reversion to the mean’ means the ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ effects will more or less balance out in the long run.
Personally I think true morality only arises from how you feel in the moment of decision. The various moral codes are only used to judge and justify the actions we take in accordance with our intrinsic moral compass. If we’re really following an external moral code we’re not acting morally at all . We’ve surrendered our moral autonomy and become ethical automata.
So it follows that true freedom is the ability to make the decisions you believe to be morally correct at the time you make them. If you can’t you’re either enslaved by external authority, doctrine or circumstance or by your own foibles and weaknesses.
But of course if there’s no free will all of this is irrelevant, though I had no choice but to write it anyway;).
LikeLiked by 1 person
While you make great points, you don’t get injected with a seat belt nor hard shoes. So these comparisons are really fallacious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How can forcing people to do something against their will be deemed ethical? Compulsion is immoral, and merely pointing to other instances of such violations against personal liberty does not constitute a valid reason for implementing additional ones.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So paying taxes is unethical in your view?
LikeLike
Voluntarily — no. Under threat of force or penalty for failing to do so — absolutely.
LikeLike
I sincerely hope your ethics are only in line with threat. That defines barbarism.
LikeLike
Sorry, that should read NOT only in line with threat.
LikeLike
Not at all. I submit that morality means doing what one considers to be right, regardless of what one is told to do by others. This is the direct opposite of legality, which proposes that one is obligated to do what one is told, regardless of whether you deem it to be right or wrong.
By way of example, slavery and debtor’s prisons were once deemed perfectly legal, but now they’re not.
LikeLike
The ethical constraint is legitimate because it constrains your freedom from imposing on mine. Freedom is not unrestricted but comes with a recognition that when freedoms do clash, legal restraint is necessary to ensure public welfare. That’s why we have a whole bunch of legally mandated constraints. That’s why you are not free to use the public square any way you wish. And so such mandatory constraints can be and are both ethical and moral.
LikeLike
They are called “in alienable
rights” for a reason: you either have personal liberties, or you don’t. Because if they can be revoked for any reason, it’s best to call them what they really are: special privileges.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“They are called…”? “Either/Or” regarding liberty?
No.
I talked about the ethical constraint of freedom, which is related to the inalienable right of liberty. These are not synonymous. Liberty is an ideal that creates freedoms; but it is REASON that constrains its application. It is eminently reasonable to constraint ‘liberty’ when it threatens the life and pursuit of happiness of others. Surely those have to count, too? The ideal cannot be used as a practical guide of ‘either/or’ on its own – as in no rules or regulations are ever ethical if these impede the inalienable right of liberty; rather, REASON is used to shape and bend and redirect how that right to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness can best be realized – put into effect without undermining other inalienable rights of others – for the greatest number and, presumably, result in the greatest good. Allowing thousands of people per week to die and use up vast sums of public money and healthcare to provide the means for recovery for those who suffered complications in the name of ‘Liberty’ for some (who then transfer much, much higher risk to everyone else by not doing their part, by risking the life and pursuit of happiness of every other citizen, by not getting vaccinated and rationalizing this irresponsible and highly selfish motive to be ‘mY fREEdOM’ , by pretending – in spite of all evidence to the contrary – that the vaccines are somehow more dangerous than the very real threat in our midst currently overwhelming hospitals and driving away doctors and nurses this very day, killing many people who also need medical services but unable to compete with a suffocating moron, is very very dishonest and unethical to the core. Rationalization and excuses of anti-vax ‘principles’ is no substitute for reason in a time of medical emergency. And an ongoing pandemic is a medical emergency and recognized as such in legislation that empowers Medical Officers to act and constrain the ‘liberty’ of those too reluctant – perhaps too stupid but probably just too selfish – to respect the same ideal for others they demand from others for themselves.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Once again, healthy individuals pose no threat to anyone’s health or liberty; so constraining them via lockdowns and/or mandating they take unneeded experimental drugs to combat a low-risk disease is not only un-constitutional, but highly immoral and medically unsound advice.
And the data collected by health agencies across the globe showed that the majority who died were elderly nursing home residents suffering from multiple health problems. So it was really a case of dying with Covid, rather than dying from Covid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These two paragraphs are factually wrong.
Our local hospital is full of Covid patients who were otherwise healthy people across the age cohorts. The ICU capacity has been quintupled over the past year to cope with all these otherwise healthy people and only a small fraction is for those over the age of 60. Maybe that’s because we have a 94% vaccination rate for those over the age of 80. We’ve even got an Olympic athlete ‘recovered’ from Covid and discharged from hospital reporting she is unable to find the energy many days to roll over in bed and take a drink of water. We’ve got otherwise healthy teenagers, uncompromised in any other way (well, as far as ANY teenager is uncompromised, I guess) dying from Covid. These are not ‘typical’ ailments from those recovering from a ‘typical’ flu. Any doctor would tell you as much.
The problem, however, is that these not-so-typical but all-too-common cases are not considered in the ‘recovery’ data hospitals use to discharge Covid patients. But if you talk to a family physician, a local health unit, a company that provides community health care, you’ll be shocked at how much demand there is for additional services for those 6 and 9 and 12 months post Covid patients STILL struggling at home just to try to function. We’ve got cases of people – many in their 20s and otherwise healthy prior to Covid – who still cannot taste or smell anything and presenting as malnourished 6 months post ‘recovery’. This not normal. This is not a disease of the elderly. It a viral pandemic and no one – even fully vaccinated – are immune. Many people who have died have not done so with Covid as you have so glibly summarized; they have died solely BECAUSE of Covid. Covid – at least in Canada – kills somewhere in the vicinity of 10% untreated people and about 1% of treated people. And these numbers are only a rough estimate based on how many people die at home when their O2 levels crash and they have a heart attack or stroke. Local paramedics say these numbers of calls are up about 20 times the normal rate prior to Covid. So the real world data – real evidence – for this danger is overwhelming. Saying otherwise is denying what’s true. It may feel good to believe it and put your mind at ease by insisting it must be so, but it is not reflective of what’s true in reality. Go to your local hospital and find out from the front line workers what’s really going on. This is not a typical flu and it is not a disease of the elderly or the unhealthy.
You might be interested to note that people who previously had Covid and recovered sufficiently to be considered fully recovered but who then get a single mRNA vaccine shot are 100 times less likely than another post Covid person who does not get vaccinated to get reinfected by any variant.
The ONLY defense we have against SARS-CoV-2 is vaccination. And this defense starts at the individual level in many ways and grows more powerful as we reach 90% of the total population. It mitigates risk. That’s all we can do. We cannot protect ourselves from the virus; we can only take actions to mitigate its effects. And by far the only one that has any significant effect is vaccination. That’s it. That’s the ballgame.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Total tests performedFrom your own Government of Canada website:
COVID-19 (to September 10, 2021, 7:03 p.m. EST)
Total tests performed – 41,324,700
Total cases – 1,538,093
Active cases – 39,198
Recovered -1,471,725
Deaths – 27,170
Estimated population: 38 million
So the death rate is 27,000/38,000,000
= 0.07% (rounded)
or 0.7 per thousand
or 70 per 100K
or 700 per million
Plus, please keep in mind that this is a cummulative total since early 2020.
Now compare this to the estimated 80,000 deaths per year (>210 per 100k) due to cancer and 50k deaths due to heart disease (https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/201126/t001b-eng.htm) and tell me where the “health care” focus should be directed.
41,324,700
Total cases
1,538,093
Active cases
39,198
Recovered
1,471,725
Deaths
27,170
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here’s the link to the Government of Canada website:
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/coronavirus-disease-covid-19.html?utm_campaign=not-applicable&utm_medium=vanity-url&utm_source=canada-ca_coronavirus
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ron, not only do I have ongoing access to CIHI (Canadian Institute for Health Information) data that accumulates all healthcare data from the entire country, I have access to those who make policy decisions based on it. As hard as it may be to accept, I actually know what I’m talking about. That’s why I asked you WHY are the massively increased number of ICU beds filled? You can figure this out all on your own. Something is causing people to get this very expensive treatment… and in very large numbers!
If this were a normal flu, why did the government fund to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a five fold increase over the past year of ICU capacity, put into effect additional ICU training in early 2020, spend so much on testing and facilities to handle the output, and a highly sophisticated means for massive federal vaccine distribution and delivery across the country? If the need weren’t so great in fact, in reality, according to the best data we have, and the cost of doing badly so dire, then how did so many people of so much medical expertise and specialization in infectious diseases running a very sophisticated medical system for millions of people get so badly and so easily fooled when a guy on the internet or some Facebook chat room has so much more insight? Oh, right… no beds in the ICU today. Can’t figure out why. Let me go online…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do I really need to post links to all the “public health care” funding cuts that led to the ICU shortage in the first place? Why not dress up that five-fold increase with some actual numbers. How many beds were there before the increase, and what is the ratio of beds to population?
LikeLike
Ah, that’s it. Immediately try to deflect the blame onto something else instead of accepting the fact that the people like you who are spreading misinformation, helping to sow distrust, misleading people into bizarre conspiracy theories, are morally guilty of murder. My niece and thousands of others like her are dying or already dead because of the garbage you and the others like you are spewing all over the media.
Seven hundred thousand people in this country are already dead, many of them because they believed the misinformation being spouted by you and others like you. I’ve had enough. Just go away.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The majority of my comments contain direct links to the source data. Kindly reference the ones that spread misinformation and bizarre conspiracy theories.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another way to think is the number of triage centers (field hospitals) set up outside of hospitals to transfer non-Covid patients in order to allow the expansion of ICUs throughout the hospital. Every city in Canada prepared for this ( because they had to submit these pandemic plans and organized placements to the federal government).
Look, this notion that the pandemic isn’t what it is because _____ (stick in whatever you want here) serves only one master: doubt. Now, the reasons for manufacturing this doubt is not medical. It is something else. You’ll have to figure out why you’ve bought into this doubt hook, line, and sinker, and figure out why you are serving this other master and embrace being duped rather than decide to use up to date medical knowledge as your guide. You will have to decide just how deeply fooled you are willing to be, and for how long, and at what cost, before you start to reverse your decent into misinformation and start to get back to respecting reality.
But don’t expect others to go along with this manufactured charade. In fact, it is reasonable to expect disgust, dismissal, and certainly a loss of respect because that is what you’ve earned by try8ing to dupe others. Not getting vaccinated is a real world problem borne out by incontrovertible data, a decision that in fact threatens the health and well being of every citizen including yourself during this pandemic. That you’ve been duped and you’re good with that is of trivial concern when acting on your denial of reality is an ongoing and increasing danger to all by elevating the risk others must endure. Expect more and more restrictions will apply to those who will not get vaccinated.
So do your civic duty even it means holding your nose knowing that at the very least you are interfering with the human chain necessary for pandemic spread. It’s such a small price to pay even if it’s nothing more in your opinion than erring on the side of caution, just in case reality and not your manufactured doubt has the final say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay. Now that we’ve got that out of the way, how about providing some of those numbers I asked for?
Specifically:
– How many beds were there before the pandemic and how many are there now?
– What was/is the ratio of beds per population?
And additionally:
– How many patients being treated for Covid have absolutely no other known contributing health problems (like high blood pressure, diabetes, Insulin resistance, etc.) or nutritional deficiencies?
–
LikeLike
A quick search yields the following summary report of Canada’s public health-care system from HospitalNews:
https://hospitalnews.com/canada-ranks-last-on-number-of-hospital-beds-wait-times/
Among the report findings:
– Canada’s health-care spending as a share of GDP (11.1 per cent) ranked second highest (after adjusting for population age) behind only Switzerland.
– Canada ranks 26th (out of 28 countries) for the number of doctors (2.8 per 1,000 people) and 26th (out of 27) for the number of hospital beds (2.0 per 1,000 people).
– Canada ranks 21st (out of 26) for the number of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines with 10.4 MRIs per million people, and 21st (out of 27) for CT scanners with 15.9 scanners per million people.
– Canada ranks last with the highest percentage of patients (30 per cent) who waited two months or longer to see a specialist, and the highest percentage of patients (18 per cent) who waited four months or longer for elective surgery.
The full report is available here:
Click to access comparing-health-care-countries-2019.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. And you know this cumulative, right? Not only do we have medical need for things like heart disease and cancer, as you quite rightly point out, now we have all that Covid applied on top. It’s not comparative: it’s cumulative.
This is why the death toll from treatable cancers and COPD and renal problems has risen when treatments are suspended or rescheduled later (a hospital with a patient lined up with a donor to have a transplant this past week had to cancel and the assembled medical team redistributed to deal with the most recent Covid surge BECAUSE there was no available ICU bed. That was taken up by a non-vaccinated Covid patient!) is unconscionable when vaccines are now easily available but refused. Where are the stats on this cost? When that patient dies having not received the transplant, nowhere will that death show up as related to Covid. But it is, you see. And it’s such a tragic waste because it should have been unnecessary had more people had the internal fortitude and do the right thing and get vaccinated if not for themselves then for the benefit of others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I stated it was cumulative, did I not? Which is precisely the point. Fatality rates are reported on a per annum basis. Reporting only cumulative deaths skews the numbers to make things look worse than they really are.
And I think you missed my point — though I admit it wasn’t made readily transparent — that the issue is modern “health care” focuses on selling the pound of cure rather than the ounce of prevention, because the former offers a never-ending revenue stream, whereas the latter leads to massive unemployment.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh I got your point(s). That’s why I pointed out vaccinations are the cheapest solutions possible, which puts your point about ‘making money’ from the disease by vaccination makers into the idiotic box where it richly belongs. The money, as I pointed out, is in the ICU beds. If money were the issue driving the pandemic, then getting more people into ICU beds is the motherload, and we’re already there! We’re actually past that in many places. Blaming the cheapest possible solution as a ‘capitalistic’ con job is even more idiotic. This notion that vaccinations are a Big Pharma money maker compared to the ACTUAL cost in health, in dollars, in suffering, in death absolutely and unequivocally dwarfs Big Pharma’s payday here. You would have to be suffering from significant brain impairment to think vaccinations was the financial motherlode here.
And the Covid cases are accumulated on top of all the other ‘normal’ rates (with the exception of yearly influenza, which the rate has dropped with all the public measures in place). These are not replacement numbers but additional numbers. In other words, these are not the flus we once had but something ‘special’. And it’s special because it fills our hospitals today and drives all these other and normal conditions into the background BECAUSE complex symptoms are so dangerous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re making my point for me. The cheapest solution is keep yourself healthy and out of hospitals, but that solution is not being promoted by the “healthcare” industry because that would put the drug companies (along with the media conglomerates who advertise their products) and the “healthcare” professionals who all make their living treating illnesses out of business.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m trying to wrap my head around your reasoning. So the vaccinated are free to roam and spread asymptomatic covid at the same rate as the unvaccinated—a threat greater to those who are uncomfortable with vaccination. Seems like the vaccinated should be a little more compassionate. If this were any other topic we would be protecting the vulnerable, but here they are the bad guys for being cautious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
From the Pfizer-issued fact sheet I was given when I was vaccinated a couple of weeks ago –
“We currently do not know how effective COVID-19 vaccines are at preventing the spread of the virus. This means that SARS-CoV-2 could potentially still infect a vaccinated person. Even if they have no symptoms or only mild symptoms they could still pass it on to others.”
That fact alone should be enough to knock people like tildeb off their authoritarian high horse. But it’s not about facts. It’s more a matter of “You’ve all got to do what I say or be punished otherwise horrible things will happen! I’ve got the science to prove it! And where I haven’t I’ll make it up!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
All the data to back up every claim, using terms like efficacy as real world behavior which are not how it plays out in reality, but using it as authoritative fact when the reality is unknown.
Would it be wise to leave some of the population unvaccinated anyway, just in case it were just a little too experimental?
There will be no herd immunity with this virus—only more shots. The new reality, all in the guise of caring and compassionate—but only if you get the shot. This sounds a little off
LikeLike
Of course the problem with trying to hold the virus off with yearly or six-monthly shots is that it won’t be sustainable in the long run. This civilisation will fall some day – doesn’t look good for this century in fact – and when our hi-tech health systems collapse there’ll be no more regular vaccine deliveries and the bug is off the leash.
When I put on my mad scientist hat I can see a technical answer to living with the virus indefinitely. We need to run a gain of function on it until it’s as contagious as we can possibly make it. And we need to knock out some of the genes that make it lethal. Then we need to try to infect everyone with it.
We’re already selecting for contagion and treatment resistance – including vaccines – but if we can come up with a less lethal strain that will out-compete its cousins we might be able to get this down to something more akin to regular winter colds (which can still kill people, BTW). Yeah, there’ll be occasional mutations that will make it into something nastier, but killing or disabling its host isn’t a good survival strategy. Hopefully the more benign strain will keep those ones at the margins. And having been recently infected with the benign one will make you at least partially resistant to the psycho-killer strains. (BTW, catching a cold seems to offer similar protection to COVID as the AstraZeneca vaccine. Too bad all the lockdowns, masks, hand-washing and social distancing is stopping us from getting them. Maybe ‘kiss a snotty-nosed brat today’ should be a public health slogan.)
That’s probably more or less what happened naturally when the common cold crossed from some animal into humans. I’m guessing it was once a much more homicidal bug than the one that gives us fatigue and sniffles. But we haven’t got thousands of years and low density hunter-gatherer tribes to play with here. So a bit of a hi-tech hurry on might be in order.
I’m not claiming that approach is the least bit ethical, especially without the sort of overwhelming consensus that we’re not going to get for it. But the Victor Frankenstein in me is good with it. If we end up killing everyone at least we will have learned something interesting.
LikeLike
It’s good to go down swinging. Every order is eventually replaced by a higher one, but nobody can recognize it at the time it’s happening. Nor will they accept it, even though they are it.
“ catching a cold seems to offer similar protection to COVID as the AstraZeneca vaccine.”. This is called viral interference through interferon. ‘Tis likely why we had no flu season in conjunction with covid. Finding a way to benignly activate that would be a cure for all viruses, and simultaneously be a ticking bomb. Funny how it all works
LikeLike
Can’t say I’m a big fan of interferon.
I had hepatitis C for about 35 years and in that time I saw loads of friends and colleagues fuck themselves up with interferon-ribavirin therapy. Made everyone sick, killed a few outright and only cured 25-30% of them.
A lot of people ended up with post-interferon syndrome, a selection of sometimes bizarre autoimmune problems that lasted years or decades after the therapy finished. The medical fraternity denied its existence until they suddenly discovered it when it was time to start rolling out new non-interferon treatments.
I had the HCV genotype most resistant to the treatment alongside a host of pre-existing autoimmune problems. But I knew there were loads of youthful IV drug users like myself who’d gone on to become financially secure family men who’d want to live to see their grandkids graduate, so the drug companies would be busting a gut to come up with a better treatment they could use to pump their wallets dry with. So I decided to wait and see.
It paid off just in time for me. My liver was A3F3 and viral peripheral neuropathy was creeping up my feet when they rolled out the new DAA treatments. But it was looking like another 5 years or so before they’d be listed on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and I couldn’t afford the $100,000+ the three months of daily pill-popping would have cost me, so I had to pull a few strings and get myself on a ‘compassionate’ program the drug company was using as a seeding trial to promote its own DAA among medical practitioners before its rivals got in first. Over three months my viral load went from 1.3 million per ml to undetectable and it’s stayed there. Within six months my liver had recovered to A0F1 and it’s now A0F0. Even the numbness and weird sensations in my feet and ankles eventually receded to my toes. So yeah, good pills. For me at least. I still hate the fucking drug company that saved my life though. I’m like that.
So to get back on topic …
Interferon often seems as bad as what it’s supposed to cure. That’s the case whether it’s administered or naturally produced in the body. It’s behind a lot of the lasting effects – such as chronic fatigue and pain – that can plague people for a lifetime after recovering from even a relatively mild infection.
So if you’re planning on ‘benignly’ activating interferon in the population please send me a tip off first so I can go and live in a cave somewhere. I’d rather take my chances with the bats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hahaha. 🦇 Will do.
I have no interest in overpreserving my life. When it all goes poof, how will I even know it?
LikeLike
Correction: It’s not Pfizer-issued. It’s from the Australian Health Department. Here’s the link.
Last I checked AusHealth hadn’t been overrun by a bunch of anti-vax ratbags.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quarantine is absolutely ethical when posing a significant health threat to others. To pretend it is ethical to freely allow a known threat to be imposed and inflicted upon everyone while unethical to restrain the one who brings the threat to others is not a sound argument.
LikeLike
Based on the documented recovery rates, Covid-19 is no greater threat to the public health than any other viral infection. And prior to the Covid-19 hysteria, we only quarantined the visibly sick — not the healthy. Can you submit even one documented case profile of an asymptomatic transmission of C19?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Based on the documented recovery rates, Covid-19 is no greater threat to the public health than any other viral infection.”
No. Factually wrong and dangerously so.
Documented recovery rates can be interpreted many ways based on how one defines ‘recovery’. We are still collecting a lot of data on this BECAUSE suffering from long term effects while still meeting the definition of ‘recovery’ – usually used as a metric to transfer a patient from one unit to another in a hospital or discharged from that hospital to home – is very much a growing concern. Various ‘recovery’ rates based on small sample sizes are quite varied depending on what this definition is but the point being raised as an alarm is that ALL evidence points upwards, points to all kinds of ongoing impediments to a full recovery… defined as returning to full function. This is a significant indication that recovery rates from SARS-CoV-2 when compared to ANY OTHER VIRAL INFECTION is not just lower but alarmingly lower. This means the assumption of people infected but recovering to a point of healthy function prior to infection is a much lower rate than from any other typical flu. In fact, the rising cases of Covid among the 0-4 age range indicates roughly 1/3 permanent kidney damage. No other flu is even in this ballpark. This is a repercussion from Delta not seen with other variants. And it’s one selected issue out of many that we know impedes anything near to ‘full’ recovery status.
Unlike every other typical flu, the organ damage from Covid is known to be at a much higher rate, much more widespread, involving many more organs than typical – specifically permanent heart and lung damage. Better treatment has been occurring based on this data so it’s not like the data is questionable. It’s a fact and much of our medical response to reduce the mortality rate is based on it. Nothing similar regardingthe varied and extensive permanent organ damage and chronic brain impairment is found with any other typical flu.
We typically don’t see rates of organ damage like we do with SARS-CoV-2. And it’s very early days collecting this information but enough to know that there is a very strong link between chronic conditions, like diabetes for example, and the expected severity of the virus that is entirely disproportionate to the severity from typical flus.
So, in a nutshell, calculating threat depends on what that specific threat might be. Because we’ve been so effective at symptomatic treatment in hospitals has artificially reduced the rate of death per case, for example, we can say that just the deaths from the US match the global death rate from yearly influenza. But hey, the really great news that never makes the rounds is that it could have been so much worse!
So the threat is profound. It’s ongoing. We’re now in a 4th wave. A fifth is on its way. Good times if you’re an anti-vaxer, but a signal to others that hoping for higher rates of vaccinations proven to eliminate such waves if widespread enough will magically appear is not sufficient. The 4th wave is evidence for that. Mandatory vaccinations are medically necessary and therefore the only ethical approach to take… if one wishes to reduce unnecessary pain and suffering from a virus that only vaccination can successfully combat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To clarify, for the 0-4 cohort, that kidney damage is from those who were hospitalized. And this is the stark difference between Covid and other flus; the severity which predicates the need for hospitalization per case is much higher for Covid symptoms. In other words, almost all flus for healthy people (healthy meaning non-compromised) do not get nearly as severe and the rate at which severity occurs is much lower than Covid.
LikeLike
I’m unable to cite statistics, but after a bout with COVID-19, personal testimonies have included continued loss of taste and/or smell, ongoing cough, edema, breathing problems, and other effects peculiar to that individual’s physical makeup.
One wonders if these are equal to or worse than the vaccine “side effects” that nay-sayers cite?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been looking for these kinds of stats but the nature of longitudinal studies means we’re going to have to wait. If I come across anything, I’ll let you know. I suspect this is going to dwarf PTSD and mental health in the coming years. Like you have heard, the anecdotal evidence is almost everywhere.
In addition, a lot of places like hospitals that once collected this kind of after-care data have not done so for as bunch of reasons, but mainly because they simply have no staff to follow up. They’re just trying to get through the next shift with enough beds, enough oxygen, enough drugs, and – hopefully – a staff replacement. I can’t tell you the frustration of nurses who are MANDATED to stay on shift after their 12 hour shift is done because a replacement cannot be found, while some yahoo gits wave their misspelled placards in demonstration and throw stuff at staff and impede ambulances coming and going while chanting about their freedoms being violated but not the freedom of everyone else to get help when they need it. Frustration is mounting.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The CDC lists the following as long-term symptoms:
– Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
– Tiredness or fatigue
– Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental activities
– Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”)
– Cough
– Chest or stomach pain
– Headache
– Fast-beating or pounding heart (also known as heart palpitations)
– Joint or muscle pain
– Pins-and-needles feeling
– Diarrhea
– Sleep problems
– Fever
– Dizziness on standing (lightheadedness)
– Rash
– Mood changes
– Change in smell or taste
– Changes in period cycles
Those are fairly mild symptoms, and could be attributable to any number of lifestyle factors or illnesses unrelated to C19.
It goes on to state that multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS) is “very rare” and occurs during or immediately after a C19 infection.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fcoronavirus%2F2019-ncov%2Flong-term-effects.html
You are correct on one thing though: chronic health problems (particularly obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, etc.) play a significant role in the outcome of those who catch the virus. But the most effective long-term solution to those problems is to mount a campaign inducing the general population to pursue a healthier lifestyle, rather than promoting quick-fix solutions.
LikeLike
Yes, those are the symptoms you raise WITH YOUR DOCTOR. The advice from that doctor is what keeps you at home or sends you off for a test which, if positive, starts the quarantine policy. For most people, this it. They eventually get better.
So why are the ICU beds overflowing, Ron?
LikeLike
The ICU beds were also overflowing during flu season. Did anyone panic then?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Those are fairly mild symptoms — Maybe to an outsider. But probably not so much to the person suffering from them. Yes, it’s entirely possible some may be related to overall health, but your suggestion to “mount a campaign inducing the general population to pursue a healthier lifestyle, rather than promoting quick-fix solutions,” hardly meets the need of those who are suffering NOW. Further, I think you would agree that lifestyle changes –especially those that affect one’s overall health– do NOT happen overnight.
You say that ” healthy individuals pose no threat” — yet “healthy individuals” have heart attacks, strokes, and discover rampant cancer in their systems all the time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
By mild, I meant mild in relation to the health problems Tildeb mentioned.
For comparison purposes, here’s a direct link to the Pfizer fact sheet listing the side effects attributed to taking their vaccine:
https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14472 (pp. 4-5)
Oddly enough, a fair number of symptoms (difficulty breathing or shortness of breath, chest pain, tiredness, dizziness, rashes, headaches, fever, muscle pain, diarrhea) are identical to the ones listed in my previous comment.
By healthy, I mean those who practice good health. HEalth i
As to lifestyle changes, that’s why I explicitly stated that these were long-term solutions. For those already at the “it’s too late” stage, the only solution is to self-isolate and/or take extra precautions in public.
And health means more than just an absence of disease. By healthy individual, I mean those who actively look after their health.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re missing data on the rates and so your ‘comparison’ is outside the ball park.
Yes, there is a very slight chance of these side effects following vaccination, and so this is WHY you are asked to wait 15 minutes after getting the shot BECAUSE all of these are IMMEDIATELY treatable on site! What miniscule risk there is from vaccination after these 15 minutes is made almost negligible by following medical advice! And even these incredibly rare happenings – like a brain clot for women regarding AstraZeneca – are also completely treatable if captured in time. That’s why patients need to be made aware of the signs and symptoms, not as a warning but as responsible precaution. There is almost no downside to vaccination. But there is a massively increased risk of harm for both the individual who refuses to get vaccinate AND every single person with whom they come into contact, not least of whom are children who have no approved vaccination (over 250,000 as of September 9th in the US).
In contrast to the risks of vaccination, the risk rate is many hundreds of thousands of times greater for not getting vaccinated, increasing the risk of getting infected, increasing the risk of spreading the virus, increasing the likelihood of not getting tested AND going out in public AND not wearing a mask. There is ONLY a downside in any fair comparison between the actual risk of vaccination and remaining unvaccinated.
In effect, Ron, you are comparing apples and fish here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The risk of death due to COVID (low for those under 60 in good health) is now fairly well established, whereas the long-term risks of the experimental drugs remains to be established because long-term trials are still ongoing and won’t be completed until 2022/3.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are calling vetted vaccines “experimental drugs.” That’s like a creationist calling a biologist an “secular scientist.” You can drop the misleading descriptive word and be far more accurate. Vaccines are a drug. They are proven safe. They are proven effective. If you understood the chemistry, you would understand why they possess no long term capability of being anything more than what they are: a manipulation of our immune response to a particular protein sequence. (Yes, there are other kinds like serums that affect T cells, and the longevity different kinds evoke in the body’s immune response and so on, but the mRNA vaccines only do one thing.)
I wonder if you’d make the same argument of not taking a cancer ‘treatment’ shown to be 95% effective killing off a potentially deadly cancer you have. You’d best think about this now because we currently have 4 kinds of exactly this targeted approach based on identical technology with very promising results. So far. Of course, Big Pharma that designs and manufactures these efficacious treatments is going to make some money here so I know it must be all bad. I have every expecation that every non-vaccinated person will stand on principle and hope their natural immunity to these cancers will carry the day. So much cheaper, too. Did you know, for example, that every ICU bed currently in use costs an average of $52,000 per Covid patient? Hospitalization costs ‘only’ $27000 per Covid patient (I might recall that figure incorrectly) and that’s without any Big Pharma involvement, by the way. That’s what it costs the public for every non vaccinated person who requires treatment of severe symptoms. In comparison, it costs about $20 for an mRNA vaccine. There’s your Big Pharma’s role.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Experimental vaccine” and “investigational vaccine” were the terms used by the US National Institutes of Health back in January of this year. “Investigational Vaccine” was also the term used by the FDA. So if you have problems with that terminology you’ll have to take it up with them. Furthermore, the FDA EUA letters to all three manufacturers (Moderna, J&J and Pfizer) stated that they had been approved by the FDA for emergency use with the disclaimer that “It is an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication”. So it cannot be definitively stated that they are “proven safe” (unlikely given the reported adverse reactions) or “proven effective” (especially unlikely given that we’re now being informed booster shots may be necessary for every future variant) until the long-term trials are actually completed around 2023.
Nor is it equivalent to the use of experimental cancer treatments, because dying of cancer introduces a component of emergency (you’re already at death’s door, so there’s nothing to lose) that the Covid vaccines were not designed to address (i.e., curing you of Covid once you have Covid).
As to the reputations of Big Pharma: I think the massive billion dollar settlements speak for themselves.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, the terminology was correct then because the vaccines were issued by emergency order. That is no longer the case, as I’ve previously explained for all approved vaccines. They are NOT an “experimental drug” any more and it is factually wrong to call them this. Actually, this is a deliberate misrepresentation, a way to ‘paint’ the most effective vaccines ever developed (but unfortunately do not last as long… chemistry, donchaknow) in an imported and imposed negative light that isn’t true in reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, based on their own press releases, the long-term trials (aka experiments) for all three are still ongoing and only the Pfizer version has been fully FDA-approved; so the terminology still applies to all three (and especially to the EUA-only Moderna and J&J versions).
LikeLike
Interesting the Pfizer vaccine has been approved and yet has the most hiccups.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One might be tempted to argue that the key players in the decision-making process stand to gain financially from awarding approval to a US-based vaccine manufacturer that stands to make the most profit (19.50 per dose for Pfizer) rather than those who have pledged to provide their vaccines at a lower price ($15 for Moderna and $16 for NovaVax) or on a not-for-profit basis ($4 for AstraZeneca, $10 for J&J,).
But such conjecture might also be construed as crazy conspiracy talk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Insurance companies are getting ramped up to enforce the vaccine or adjust premiums. The insurance companies all mostly hold stock in the vaccine industry and a good percentage have upped their shares.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-insurers-boost-stakes-in-covid-19-vaccine-makers-in-2020-63484168
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a case of “heads we win” (higher dividends) and tales you lose (higher premiums).
Got to hand it to those actuaries; they really know their stuff.
LikeLike
And Pfizer has stakes in the hospital business. It’s a happy little family.
LikeLike
Bottom line, Jim, is this entire country is being run by capitalists. There’s simply no arena that isn’t touched by those who are seeking to increase their wealth. But when we focus on that arena of life to make decisions — especially surrounding our health and well-being — aren’t we cutting off our nose to spite our face?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nonsense.
In case you haven’t noticed the study published this week, the myocarditis and pericarditis caused by mRNA vaccines usually emerges from 2 to 10 days after having a shot. It’s particularly prevalent in young men and boys and in the 12-17 age group represents a greater risk of hospitalisation, ICU care and death than does contracting COVID among this cohort.
So here’s a puzzle for your little utilitarian mind.
Is it ethical to mandate vaccines for these boys in order to theoretically protect others even though it puts them at personally higher risk of illness and death than does going unvaccinated?
LikeLiked by 1 person
to say that we shouldn’t require people to get a vaccine that works since it might cause overpopulation is ridiculous in my opinion. As much as I am all for decreasing the population, allowing people alive here and now to be harmed by the willfully ignorant and selfish is not the answer.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree it is not the answer, but possibly allowing the unvaccinated to stay that way, is. It is just as natural to refuse it as it is to take it. Why not let nature decide that?
LikeLike
because those morons who are infected can infect those who can’t be vaccinated for some medical reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, those morons who are infected can also be those vaccinated. What is right or wrong here?
LikeLike
Jim, I think you known exactly what I mean. Those who choose not to be vaccinated because of willful ignorance and selfishness. Not those who have gotten vaccinated in good faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You won’t be taking any antibiotics in the future then? Also, repeating the genetic fallacy again and again is not helping your case. And it does need quite a bit of help.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I will do whatever I need to do. I really have no case, just a question on ethics. I imagine if trump was mandating vaccinations this way an entire different group would be up in arms. No?
LikeLike
And? They would need a coherent argument about them up or would be dismissed as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t ask questions I know the answer to
LikeLike
FDA approval occurred August 23rd. Prior to that, vaccination was based on emergency approval. But FDA approval means the highest bars of safety and efficacy have been met. No approved drug is safer. No approved drug has undergone the rigor of these vaccines. No other approved drug has presented more data from more sources than these vaccines. In other words, no approved drug – including Aspirin – has been so thoroughly vetted.
So here’s the thing, Jim: if you want to hold these vaccines in your esteemed opinion as questionable or dangerous or uncertain, then to be both honest and ethical you must hold ALL other drugs with MORE concern. Dangerous substances like Ibuprofen. Tylenol. Pepto-Bismol. Birth control. And you must be beside yourself with concern about the impending doom and catastrophic public health fallout from tattoos and unregulated ink.
If people had been so ‘well-informed’ as you in earlier times, we would still have smallpox outbreaks, polio ravaging children, and diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps and rubella commonplace. All of these are now either eradicated or, if vaccination levels fall, still lurking. That’s why every generation continues to get vaccinated for the lurking ones and no one has to get vaccinated with those eradicated. Vaccination works. And it doesn’t ‘clear the path’ for new more deadly variants to arise.
Jim, you have been badly fooled. And your foolishness is an ally of SARS-CoV-2 making the problem of dealing with it as a public health emergency and all its variants of concern arising because of the human petri dish your attitude continues to promote and will keep on reducing the effectiveness of our vaccination programs by granting this virus the time and hosts necessary to mutate over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
We have exactly ONE defense against reducing the risk of the SARS virus. That defense is vaccination and not, as you presume, prior infection. You are doing your best to undermine the ONE thing you and others can do on behalf of everyone you care about, namely, support the implementation a widespread mandatory fast vaccination program that we KNOW works. All the rest of your concerns are manufactured doubt that are synonymous with anti-vax bullshit and denialism. That real world cost you are willing to impose on everyone in the name of ‘safety’ DWARFS any other concern you raise about hypothetical vaccine dangers. The risk from falling out of bed is much much greater than vaccinations and I don’t see you advocating we get rid of beds.
LikeLiked by 5 people
One can choose to sleep on the floor to mitigate that risk. All you say in complete confidence isn’t purely science, but capitalism science. There are more, but can I say thalidomide, bextra, and vioxx…. and those all occurred thorough screenings at the fda.
All I’m asking is it ethical to force it? If Trump was mandating this an entirely different sector would be up in arms and crying dictators.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s ethical.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That’s a good one. The Pharma-funded FDA that rotates its members in and out of the drug companies?
jim has already listed quite a few molecules that vaulted the ‘highest bars of safety and efficacy’ without any trouble, then went on to kill or maim thousands. You could easily add just about every psychiatric drug to that list, and don’t even get me started on aducanumab.
It’s probably safer to buy old style illegal street drugs. At least they’ve had decades of government funded research trying to prove they’re unsafe that you can check out first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point here is that the bar has been met. By all means go to town criticizing where this bar is. But it is this bar that then allows for mandating; prior to that, mandating could not be done. The vaccines have met this bar whereas all naturopathic ‘remedies’, for example, that sells widely does not. yet I don’t hear anti-vaxers and reality deniers go to town criticizing all these products as some kind of ‘capitalist’ conspiracy. That would be too non-hypocritical and we wouldn’t want such people to meet that bar. No, no, no… let’s only go after vaccines and highly tested drugs; all others get an exemption from the same standards, of course. It’s always and only Big Pharma that’s the bad guy.
Now let’s move to the central issue: real world data on how safe the mRNA vaccines are. This is called ‘effectiveness’ and tests the vaccines after being delivered and it is here that Jim’s contrary points simply evaporates in the light of reality. Reality should be guiding us here and not denying it in the name of something else. Respecting reality I think is always fundamental baseline to any questions of ethics. Mandating an incredibly safe vaccine to promote public health is a no-brainer when so many people are quite willing to rationalize increasing the real world danger by refusing to stop their fist where the nose of someone else is getting pulverized. That refusal is unethical because it grossly inflates the real world risks to others and so it is fully justified to mandate universal vaccination. And that’s exactly what public health authorities are granted by legislation to do. In fact, there’s a powerful case to be made that it would unethical not to mandate and allow greater risk of harm to befall those whose consent has not been considered by the selfish gits who think refusing a vaccine is the greater right.
I still think unvaccinated adults should always be put at the end of any line for anything including and especially hospitalization. I know that sounds brutal, but go talk to healthcare workers. The gits are putting us all in very great danger far, Far, FAR in excess of anything that could potentially result from an adverse vaccine reaction. They simply do not have that right.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“ I still think unvaccinated adults should always be put at the end of any line for anything including and especially hospitalization”
So I’m sure you’d be turning in your neighbors because they may risk hospitalization, while those vaccinated live the good life while spreading the virus with their false sense of security.
So, when they combine aging genetics of the Seychelles tortoise, the Greenland shark, and the geoduck and determine we can now have humans living 300 years with a little gene tampering vaccine that becomes mandatory or you face the sanctions you’ve outlined (including higher premiums of course) will that then be ethical as well?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hardly. Would you like me to point you to some of the media outlets, skeptics websites and, yes, my own blog posts that rubbish and debunk various kinds of alt-medicine quackery? There’s no shortage of them.
The problem is that Big Pharma not only has Big PR Budgets, it also exerts undue control over Big Regulators and Big Media to ensure the negatives stay hidden and the positives get shoved in your face 24/7 – even when the positives aren’t positive at all.
Yes, all in all I’m a fan of vaccines and antibiotics. Despite shortages and delays where I live I’ve managed to obtain my first mRNA shot and scheduled my second. But I sure didn’t leap to the front of the queue when they were first released. Because they weren’t properly tested, especially not on people with my medical profile. I decided to let them use a few million other people as guinea pigs first.
But we still don’t know what their potential long-term drawbacks or duration of efficacy are, despite all the cheer-leading by folks like you. This is a coronavirus you know. Other human coronaviruses, such as the common cold, don’t produce a sustained immune response and there’s already indications that these ones lose efficacy over six months or so. The majority of people dying of COVID in the UK now were among the first tranche to be vaccinated. It’s looking increasingly likely we’ll be getting these shots every six months for the rest of our lives, which is also something untested for safety and efficacy.
What’s more, while the vaccines seem to reduce the risk of serious illness and death they don’t prevent infection like, say, the MMR vaccine. It’s not even clear they reduce the viral load among those subsequently infected or prevent them from infecting others. So the whole ‘herd immunity’ thing is looking quite dubious.
Nonetheless we’re being fed buckets of horseshit about the ‘science’ proving their efficacy and safety while most of the data still isn’t in. And that’s par for the course with new vaccine roll-outs. It happened last year in the Sudan with a new polio vaccine that caused a polio outbreak where the disease had previously been eliminated and it happened during the 1976 swine flu debacle when a hastily rolled out vaccine during a panic over a very mild flu strain killed and permanently disabled far more people than the virus did. Then they did a repeat from the same playbook in 2009 and it was pure luck they didn’t get the same result.
So no thank you. I’ll trust my own data collection and analysis over the FDA and other regulators any day. And if you were a critical thinker you would too. They don’t need any more cheerleaders.
LikeLiked by 3 people
awesome answer, smart and ruthless!
LikeLiked by 2 people
In my former life, I was a disability rights advocate. I dealt with the prebirth genetic tests – who decides who gets born and why. I am of two minds. Yes, I know about what I consider disability porn – the heroic kid born with Downs Syndrome who blesses the community or the heroic kid born with no arms who is a real trooper. I wonder what the parents do at night when they are emotionally exhausted by the continuing care of these children.
I knew a man who had MDA, whose brother and father died from MDA. He did not want to pass it on to his kids, so he would test and abort if the test came up MDA. I had long talks with him about his decisions. He simply did not have the emotional stamina to raise a child with disabilities nor did he want to. To bring such a child into his family would mean disaster for the child.
I had to decide in my son’s case when he came up with genetic problems. I decided to keep him and raise him with as much community support that I could find. It was hard but we both made it through to now that he works and pays rent. I thought that aborting him would deny him a chance at life.
As you can see this is very, very grey, and there are no sure answers. Just a lot of questions and ponderings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jim I don’t know if you are familiar with Mencken’s essay man vs men or something close to that. You seem to be saying let those who die die and those who survive to do because the world is overpopulated. Why send aid to those affected by earthquake or forest fire after all it is nature acting on the population? Is this the thesis you’re defending or I have misrepresented you?
Do the vaccines have full fda approval as claimed above or just emergency approval for use in 16 and below? I could be wrong but that’s the implication I got from the letter.
I don’t know about the US but where I live, there are vaccines given to children even before age of consent. Should your question apply to them?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is nature acting on the population? Are the fires a result of trying to manage animals and timber populations? The actual drug that has been approved isn’t the one their using. The approved drug is Comirnaty, which is not available.
LikeLike
Of course. If an earthquake is an act of nature and leads to death to a portion of the population, it goes without saying that yes, it does.
As to what drugs have been approved, I can’t say I have followed that up
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s fairly obvious by now that grandpa Biden no longer has the mental capacity to make any decisions. His script is prepared by his handlers.
As for “vaccine” mandates . . . just say “no” to experimental drugs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is right? What is wrong? No matter how we live, what beliefs we hold, what experiences we have or do not have, there is no such thing as ABSOLUTE RIGHT or ABSOLUTE WRONG. We do what we do, and we live or die by the consequences.
Those “rights” that are being discussed do not exist! What exists is life, and what we seem to want to do is to prolong life as much as possible until our lives end, but life itself still goes on. What we decide is “right” for us is not always what we decide is right for anyone else, and therein lies the heart of the matter. Vaccines can help us prolong life, but so do foods, and water, and shelter. What would life be like if we had to fight for those things? We in the “developed world” take for granted we will have food, water, and shelter every day until we die. But those things are not rights! They are the luck of where we happened to be born. While we are debating vaccines, people in this world are dying because their food, water, or shelter is inadequate to their needs. Yet we do little to nothing to help those people survive, as long as we ourselves survive.
I’vé lost the point of what I started to say, but I think this discussion has become more esoteric than it needs to be. In my tiny mind, if we are going to see what the real consequences of the Covid pandemic are, we either need to caccinate everyone, or vaccinate no one. And since most people seem to want to be vaccinated, and there is no real reason not to be, let’s quit fighting for individual rights and freedoms, and do what is best for everyone. Get vaccinated, and deal with the consequences if and when the arrive. To speculate on all the things that “could hsppen” is an impossible process, a never-ending process.
The fourth wave of Covid, the Delta Wave, is showing us that it is better to be vaccinated than not. Some people are still going to die, but that is part of life. Some people are going to die every day,? Covid or no Covid, with or without Covid vaccines. You adamantly refuse to get vaccinated, go live in some anti-vaccine enclave. Be the control group that shows the rest of us if we are right or wrong. In your last post, Jim, you told us we will all be dead 100 years from now anyway, with or without vaccines. So what does it matter? Individual rights be damned!
LikeLiked by 4 people
You always have a better chance of going with the experts and professionals and not the con men, conspiracy theory nutcases and religious nutcases. Not saying it’s perfect, but the odds are better.
Which is better a vaccine or a livestock dewormer? There will always be those who say the dewormer and those, more than willing, to sell it to you. And yes there is no absolute truth in anything in life. At some point you will have to decide what kind of people you trust and if you are naturally suspicious of everyone and think the government, doctors, and scientists are out to screw you or that most are not and have no ulterior motives or lurking dishonesty, but just want to help.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for responding, Mary. Yup, everyone has ulterior motives, it seems. My own ulterior motive is to see the world advance to a place of one world, one people, one biosphere where all living things work together to support all living beings.
Seems we still have a bit of a way to go…
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/11/new-us-studies-show-covid-vaccines-protect-from-serious-illness
I’ll just leave this here. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ron: “The risk of death due to COVID (low for those under 60 in good health) is now fairly well established” I’m sure your statement will be of great comfort to my niece who is currently on a ventilator right now and will probably be dead by the time you read this and come back with some more of your snappy replies. I have absolutely no patience left with people like you so just take your jargon, your cherry picked statistics and unproven nonsense and go away.
LikeLiked by 4 people
That sucks. And the helplessness sucks. I wish more of us would get angry about this deplorable state of selfishness by people who could get vaccinated but all too willing to put all of us at much greater risk for their own rationalizations. And I have little patience for those who are vaccinated but continue to lend air to the bizarre notion that these vaccines are more dangerous and untrustworthy than the vaccines. I wish they could go spend time with your niece and explain their reasons to her and her family. Face to face.
LikeLiked by 4 people
More dangerous than the virus, I meant to say.
LikeLike
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
― William Pitt the Younger
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To all of the above or just the ethical question? Should there be some compassion for those uncomfortable with vaccination? Conformity is sometimes as bad as it is good. I have no answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Conformity” ???? “uncomfortable” ???? We do not see this the same way, but I’m not going to waste time debating or arguing. I think it is absolutely ethical.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jim, Scottie asked me to share this video with you …
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well done. Makes perfect sense. Curious, did I suggest the delta variant was because of the vaccine? I know I referred that one doc and Quanta magazine that stated vaccines in the middle of a pandemic can help create variants in the same manner antibiotics change because of antibiotics. I agree with the video.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, they’re not going to create variants, but they’ll help vaccine-resistant variants become the dominant strain. Natural selection and all that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought I would throw this in as well … 😉
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines-myth-versus-fact
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with all but the first one. It’s a little too early to tell and funding is just now being provided to study the effects on fertility after so many women started complaining about irregularities in their cycles—after receiving the vaccine. Not sure when this was published or what they consider “safe” for pregnant women but I’d be pretty wary so quickly determining this a Category B drug, which includes prenatal vitamins, acetaminophen, and some other medications used routinely during pregnancy. If there is a clinical need for a Category B drug, it is considered safe to use it. Most remain category C for a long trial period and never make the B grading. Idk. This seems presumptuous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Subbing
LikeLike
I don’t understand your comment boss…
LikeLike
Sorry buddy… Subbing to the thread so I can follow it. Been busy so I’m late to the show. Don’t really have anything witty to say though right now 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Today, 11 of the 12 admissions to ICU for Covid in a single hospital were under the age of 12. Their ONLY defense is if enough adults are vaccinated to reduce the risk they must face. The vaccinated are only slightly above 50% in this town. You reap what you sow, all you ‘hesitant’ anti-vaxers. Well done. There’s your answer to the ethics question you’ve raised. Apparently, it’s more ethical to put all of our children in such danger than it is to force the grown ups to be responsible citizens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
How do you know they didn’t catch covid from vaccinated adults? This is the part that makes little sense. Your blaming people and it could be anyone. Sorry, this is an unreasonable accusation. The vaccine protects adults from hospitalization. Now it the wonder drug?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Because the rate of Covid from breakthrough cases AND pre-symptomatic is vanishingly small. Possible, sure, but highly doubtful. I will look into it, but I seem to recall zero positive cases for fully vaccinated in this health unit. At the height of the last wave, I think they had 5 positive cases at their peak. In this 4th wave so far, the data is trending towards very bad.
Also, in Alberta today, they have now shut 2 schools that have reached the minimum requirement of 10% of their student population testing positive and declaring an outbreak… in the first week back. Again, nothing like this from any of the previous 3 waves. Alberta as a whole is very much like Texas in public attitudes towards this virus: rock-chewing stupid and proudly so.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We are having an outbreak here as well. With in person schooling (which I think was a bad call) it is to be expected. Schools are pretty well established trading grounds for contagious disease.
LikeLike
“ but I seem to recall zero positive cases for fully vaccinated in this health unit.
Are you talking admissions or cases of covid?
LikeLike
Eleven new positive “cases” in fully-vaccinated (>85%) Gibraltar today: 6 unvaccinated, 5 fully vaccinated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah. So what? That we had a window of opportunity to stop Covid by mass vaccination but failed to achieve high enough rates because of gits like you? Maybe. But Delta was always going to become the dominant strain and we already know effectiveness of vaccination declines over time especially with a short acting response like them RNA vaccines. So that’s why I ask, So what? This is what we should expect will happen and we’ve seen the the breakthrough rate steadily rise. But here’s the thing, Ron: I will bet your life (because that’s what you’re doing already) that the vaccinated do much better than the non vaccinated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lol. Shifting the goal posts, one comment at a time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the type of people you’re targeting would respond better with just pure and simple data without the coercion tactics. Resistance to authority trumps any level of common sense or decency.
LikeLike
As does mindless subservience to authority. Hanna Arendt called it “the banality of evil”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually tildeb, Ron is making your case for you, though as Mr “I’ve-got-the-data”, the significance of the data seems to have passed you by.
The n value is too low for solid conclusions, but on the face of it if 85% of people in Gibraltar are vaccinated, but only 45% of those getting infected are it suggests an unvaccinated person is nearly 4 times as likely to get infected as a vaccinated one.
Of course there’s probably loads of confounding factors. I dunno what triggers a test in Gibraltar, but if infected vaccinated people are more likely to be asymptomatic than unvaccinated ones (as seems to be the case) they’re less likely to be detected by health authorities. It’s also possible that the vaccination program is slower among people more liable to infection (e.g. high density, low socioeconomic populations – as is the case here in Australia) so the differing infection rate might not be entirely down to vaccination status. Or there might be stupid arseholes in the Gibraltar public health system who ensure the unvaccinated don’t get equitable access to public health resources, thereby increasing their risk of infection and of infecting others and putting even more strain on the health system.
LikeLike
Another reason the selfish arrogant “I know better than the experts” need to get over themselves.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/alabama-heart-patient-dies-after-hospital-contacts-43-icus-3-n1279025
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think there is more to this story they are not telling. Too many vagaries. No where in the article does it state he or his family was vaccinated, and according to “tildeb compassion”, he should not have been treated at all.
His timing for his event was unfortunate but years in the making.
In my little town a vaccinated couple died of covid two weeks ago. The family even pointed out in the obituary they were vaccinated so as to remove all finger pointing. This article dances around the family’s actual status.
LikeLike
In this case, Jim, I don’t think HIS vaccination status played a role. He had a heart attack. Whether “years in the making” or not … there were no facilities available to treat him when he needed it because the beds were full with COVID-19 patients. And since reports indicate that Alabama has the fourth-lowest vaccination rate, there’s a strong chance most of them were unvaccinated.
Whether you choose to believe the viability of vaccinations or not, the ongoing reports that the unvaccinated are the ones filling the hospital beds, IMO, speaks for itself.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It isn’t whether the vaccine works or not as you can see from this meme that crossed my Facebook feed
Why I mentions to to Tildeb we might be better off just posting simple statistics than trying coercion. It is a resistance to authority that is the issue.
LikeLike
It is a resistance to authority that is the issue. Perhaps overall this is true. But that doesn’t mean diddly-squat to the family of the man who died because he couldn’t get a hospital bed to treat his heart attack.
Resistance to authority is what gets people killed in pretty much all instances. Unfortunately, in order for people to survive on this planet, there has to be some rules and regulations. The consequences that come about because some people don’t like them –and RESIST following them– has been proven time and again to result in less-than-satisfactory endings.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Most dangerous precedent for our liberty…”
Oh for fucks sake, come on, Jim.
Most dangerous precedent? Errum… Mandated Polio vaccines.
Threat to your liberty = Go and take a look at Citizens United
LikeLiked by 3 people
Whoa buddy. I’m not endorsing the meme, but pointing out that this is the mindset we’re up against.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oooooooooh, my bad. Sorry!
Wanker who wrote that though should be interned in the Thought Crimes Camps we’ve set up across the US.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This came from my longest, best friends wife all nestled away in north Idaho.
LikeLike
Cleanse that state with nuclear fire.
LikeLike
Lol. Not sure I’d go that far. I’d does however add an unpredictable predictability to the show, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is from another article (The Hill), since it seems to be an issue for you to prove that the vaccine is bad or unnecessary and people die from covid even with it, so they shouldn’t get it.
“DeMonia’s daughter told the newspaper that her father was vaccinated against the virus, and the family is now urging others to do the same.”
And I do know of someone who was fully vaccinated and got covid and did die. An older man with cancer and under chemotherapy for it. He had a very compromised immune system.
Nothing is perfect, but the selfishness and conspiracy theories people fall for is killing people…themselves and others.
I personally couldn’t care if these anti vaxers died themselves, but they affect innocent people and children who have no choice if they are raised by fools.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post Jim. Being open to questions and peer reviewed studies is not anti-science. Ethics goes out the door if one narrative becomes heavily pushed and no alternative routes allowed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Being open to these for the pat 20 months should count for something, don’t you think? And we know there is only 1 meaningful response to the pandemic: vaccination. It’s like suggesting the fire department hold a conference with historians of fire and architects and cultural representatives and city planners and arsonists to be ‘open’ to various inputs AFTER the fire alarm has been pulled and the evidence of a growing conflagration indisputable.
No amount of talking now is helpful. It only allows the problems to get worse and worse and worse. The longer we wait, the more idre the consqMeaningful action with a known effective response really does become rather more important than the appearance of debating merits. At least, I suspect you would want action rather than more talk if it were your house on fire and the first responders wanted to go put out but bystanders insisted ‘we’ discuss more peer reviews on more fire suppressant studies.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for your comment. I am grateful for free speech allowing us to have this discussion. I may not agree with you, but your right/our rights to disagree is something worth protecting. I live in a different country with a different approach to this whole thing. The gene technology is not comparable to the fire scenario, as flames has existed for all of our history. Also, one is a force in nature and the other is a synthetic nature injected into us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, free speech is the cornerstone of liberalism. Without that, everything else (meaning personal rights and freedoms) falls. Anyway…
The analogy is used to show why doubting vaccination is tantamount to letting the pandemic – like a fire – continue unabated. This is beyond foolish.
The corona virus is ‘natural’. The vaccines are not. Using ‘natural vs ‘synthetic’ as some kind of metric that prefers the former over the latter is rather foolish, too. There are different kinds of ‘synthetic’ vaccinations for this corona virus and every one of them is far less dangerous, far less risky, to the recipient than the virus. The most efficacious AND the most effective vaccines are the messenger RNA proteins that activates the body’s immune response for a single protein. You’ve probably heard of the protein, which is called the ‘spike’ protein… the part of the virus that hooks on to certain kinds of cells in the back of the nose and in the upper respiratory tract. The vaccines that target this protein are the mRNA vaccines (that go by different names). They prepare the body to recognize and kill vast quantities of this virus that are hooked into the body’s cells. That’s all these proteins vaccines do. And they last about two to three weeks in the body. That’s it. All done. That’s why we take two vaccines at least three weeks apart; because the maximum number of antibodies the body will produce from the instruction of these mRNA vaccines peaks with these two ‘training’ shots, so to speak. That’s why there’s debate today about the usefulness of a general booster shot.
The thing about the mRNAs is that we can target specific proteins and even just parts of protein chains by instructing out immune system to produce antibodies when it recognizes these chains. So the potential for this kind of target protein therapy goes far beyond viruses are current in testing with at least (as far as I’m aware) 4 known cancers currently being studied. And there is reason to be really excited about this with preliminary findings.
So there’s a huge amount of in depth understanding and expertise when it comes to this kind of medicine. And when they produce 95% efficacy against a known pathogen with almost no negative repercussions, it makes little sense to presume against all this real world AND lab evidence for additional caution. We KNOW what Covid means as far as risk to those who get the virus and this risk is literally thousands and thousands of times greater for those who are not vaccinated. In every way. This includes fully vaccinated people who do get Covid; again, far Far, FAR better results are more likely than for those who do not get vaccinated.
If the vaccination vs ‘natural immunity’ debate used a balancing board, ALL the evidence is at one end. That’s why many people say the only weight at the other end is the fear, misinformation, and disinformation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Conspiracy theories are bias driven by end-time target fixation—the end is near! Believers can validate their belief by adhering that everything uncomfortable or new is some hidden power of elitists trying to capture the globe and put it in bondage.
It’s atypical to only believe one or two.
LikeLike
Well maybe in part, I guess. But my experience is usually by those who want to feel special, that they have the inside track, so to speak, that their standard of skepticism is superior, that kind of thing. It’s what I think of as an elevator belief, one that raises one’s ego. But this is also the conspirator’s Achille’s heel.
The bubble can burst when one realizes the presumption is that one has to be the smartest person in the room, smarter and more informed than every single expert in the world, more than all the accumulated expertise amassed, usually greater than tens of thousands of real world experts. It takes so much hubris, such a vast presumption of superior ego that the conspiracy must be true but almost no one ‘sees’ it! Therefore the believer MUST be the smartest person BECAUSEE so few ‘see’ it. It actually takes courage to back up and allow real world expertise an honest hearing because the ego is going to take a hit. There really are lots of people who know a lot more than we do and we can benefit by trusting expertise when it reaches consensus. I trust those who have designed, say, call phone technology BECAUSE they have produced a device that seems to me to work reliably and consistently well for everyone everywhere where there’s coverage. I don’t understand how it all works but I can trust enough to presume it does. But when someone links cellphone technology to spreading a corona virus, then we’ve left the field of reality BECAUSE no one is able to show the linking mechanism between the two so every single claim about some vast conspiracy is based solely and wholly on belief contrary to what every expert in either cellphone or virology tells me. For me to believe otherwise, for me to trust less in those whose opinions are informed by expertise and more in some internet or talk radio host weaving a deep conspiracy is really a test at which I value more: what’s probably true OR whether I want to make myself feel special denying those who know a lot more than I do.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“There is some truth in our fiction and some fiction in our truth.” Neo in The Matrix
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment. Do you work with this technology or just invested in the cause? Just curious:-)
LikeLike
I’m an interested bystander because it takes up some of the time of my spouse who was once a valuable part of policy team for our provincial government here in Ontario. Those connections and conversations continue so SARS-CoV-2 knowledge is commonly discussed and Covid results, too. I mention the two because the virus is the former and disease is the latter. My spouse went on to work for a bunch of years in palliative care, as well, so there is always an important link between what’s going on ‘on the ground’ so to speak and the policies developed in response. The conversations are many and often detailed because they are based on an assortment of data and experiences.
For example, discussion today revolves around this podcast (this is the written transcription) and how it plays into better understanding what it is we’re talking about and why vaccinations are so important a factor on the daily tallies of infected and symptomatic, which are the experiences part, and which then leads directly to the number of hospitalizations and intensive care units needed and staffing levels, which is the what the policies – political and financial – are then based on. It’s all connected.
Against this mounting pile of knowledge are all kinds of personal opinions and somewhat vague and sinister undertones many internet users put out there. And this is very frustrating to expert medical officers who see the data and understand the policies and have to compete for attention and transmission of good information and medical knowledge with people who don’t really know what they’re talking about when it comes to vaccinations and why they are the central pillar all of us need to get a handle on this pandemic and try to return everything back to ‘normal’. Vaccinations are the key.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for sharing your story. I wish you all the best on your journey. Both you and your wife. Jim is my friend even though we have opposing views (I am a person of faith). I rarely post any comments as it results in endless discussions. Neither Jim nor I is going to change our fundamental views. Nor are any other atheist or I may or may not have a conversation with. Therefore, I struggle to see the point. I prefer uplifting and meaningful interactions where one is able to find some common ground. We can care and love a person even though we do not agree with them. Some years ago I found it really interesting to discuss opposing views. However, I learned that we all tend to jump into all sorts of conclusions. More often than not I was put in a box where a slew of assumptions were made by people who do not know me at all, I mean at all. That is not to point any fingers at anyone that would mean three of my fingers would be pointing back at me. Made my fair share of mistakes, especially because my emotions got the best of me. Summarized; I believe in the way of Love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The way of love would be very timely right now, but reality is—I love you but… Who would get vaccinated against their wishes for another’s safety and well being? Greater love hath no man….Love is just a buzz word if there is no action involved. It’s like saying god loves you. It changes nothing.
LikeLike
I do not know what exactly you are trying to say. Honestly, and I do not want to make assumptions when that is the case. You do not have to explain unless you really feel like it, you get a lot of comments and have a busy life. All I actually tried to do in the first place was to leave a positive comment. Guess I failed. Hugs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always nice to see you pop in to the dark side söster. Don’t be too hard on yourself. I would actually like to see more believers defend their stance as reasonably as you often do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you bror for your uplifting words. I feel many fellow believers is kind of ruining God’s reputation. Not believing that love as in actions IS the way to live and practice faith. Doctrines are not faith. Hugs ❤
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then what do you have faith in without the doctrine?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everything. Thank you for such an open question. I will try to give you an explanation, but cannot promise a well-worded one. When I wrote the book I was very very naive when it came to other Christians. I thought they too believed in the way of Love, like a law written in our hearts to live by. My assumption was that the main point on their journey too was working on becoming a better person each and every day. Like in kinder and more compassionate. To treat others the way themselves want to be treated. Be a good Samaritan. Then, I found out that they focused rather on forever studying and interpreting the Bible, listening to the right pastors, going to the right meetings, reading the right books. If you can recite Bible verses while accurately pinpointing its location you are impressive in these circles. They say the right things, wonderful guidelines to live by, but are blind to the fact that they do not live by their words. They turn everything on its head, the least is the last and not the first. Their own interpretation are of course the right one, all the others are wrong. They are not open to questions, they are afraid actually to step out of their comfort zone of their faith. Making themselves into god unknowingly when it is them defining God. “Do not worry God, I, I have got this”. Instead of acknowledging that our understanding falls short when it comes to infinity. This is not a very well worded explanation, and I am a bit hesitant of posting. As there are probably a gazillion ways that this can be misunderstood and twisted around. To be clear, no I do not have all the answer. In fact, I have plenty of questions, but although it is impossible for me to prove I have experienced the living Word that is Love. Please be gentle in your reply, I am not that tough;-) Love, din søster
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hello friend. How are you doing?
I agree that everything should be explored, but it seems like the same people have the same objections to this, as they do to that. There is no conspiracy here. At first I was concerned that so many people were so compliant to the lockdowns, but then I realized people care a lot about their neighbors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello friend ❤ I am doing well thank you. How are you? You are right, the pro people are very altruistic, and the other side too. I know people from both perspectives, and this appears to be the case. However, I cannot speak for another country with a different culture where the approach is different. The divisions and extremes are not at all very prevalent here. Conspiracies tend to go to extreme lengths and becomes a form of self-hypnosis. Truth is usually somewhere in the middle, a wise person once said.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” 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.
LikeLike
OBESITY A MAJOR RISK FACTOR FOR COVID-19 HOSPITALIZATION
I’ll keep pounding the facts, while you keep pounding the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Missing link: https://hub.jhu.edu/2020/06/01/david-kass-obesity-covid-19/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Look at the date, Ron. Now we’re dealing with Delta, which is why I mentioned it SPECIFICALLY.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.)
LikeLike
*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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
For what it’s worth, I’m understanding what you’re saying.
Not sure Ron, for whatever mysterious reasons he might have, *wants* to understand.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just so. I was beginning to wonder if I was writing in tongues.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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)
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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?
LikeLike
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.
Here’s two articles:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-09-01/brazil-gets-its-vaccine-act-together
LikeLiked by 1 person
And yet the Israeli health minister just announced that the COVID spread is reaching record heights, even after having rolled out three doses.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/health-ministry-chief-says-coronavirus-spread-reaching-record-heights/
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Except it’s backed up by data:
https://datadashboard.health.gov.il/COVID-19/general
(Right-click anywhere on page and select the “translate to English” option in your browser)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
It seems Tildeb, you want this too badly to see things aren’t quite what we had hoped
LikeLike
What???
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heath of the population isn’t a “social construct”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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)
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just want every wet market in the world closed 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Someday. And sooner than later, I hope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
No (it’s not ethical) to all but the last, because it’s the only one that actually inflicts direct harm upon others.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yet in an earlier comment you opined “if everyone who could have gotten vaccinated had done so by July 4th, we wouldn’t be in a 4th wave”.
https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2021/09/09/bioethics-what-is-right/comment-page-1/#comment-40279
Looks like that unevidenced assertion didn’t quite pan out so well in Israel, now — did it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*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.
LikeLike
61.6% vaccinated.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
80% of the population needs to be vaccinated to reach herd immunity: Fauci
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/12/16/80percent-of-the-population-needs-to-be-vaccinated-to-reach-herd-immunity-fauci.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe we need to start thinking g of this as a prophylactic? Immunity implies something here the vaccination doesn’t provide
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
lol. Which one of the Big Pharma companies is paying you to push their drugs?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your fists must be getting awfully sore from all that pounding by now. Perhaps you should consider taking a break to let then recover.
LikeLike
Everyone is back to school and socializing. This is where we will see the true data.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, that’s idiotic.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I posted two articles about how vaccination rates have slowed Delta’s spread through Brazil, but Jim has to approve the comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found it. Not sure why it hung up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Two links… It’s a WP thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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’.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I swear, Idiocracy is a prophetic work
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, you may be right.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ron is not alone.
This is a headline from this morning from liberal Washington state, thousands of state employees are seeking exemption
LikeLike
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
It really is, john zande!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Real world evidence from John …
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If nothing else you’ve had a good run at explaining your position. Hopefully change a few minds along the way. Thanks boss!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Real world evidence comes from source data published in research studies, not news media articles.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t source my information from Fox, NewsMax, or OAAN.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
lol. Keep pounding your lectern, tildeb.
LikeLike
”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
LikeLike
Yeah. So?
LikeLike
Yeah so? This doesn’t look good for the effectiveness. This is concerning data, maybe we need a second look.
LikeLike
In what way is this confusing?
LikeLike
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”
LikeLike
Vaccine efficacy AND effectiveness is beyond doubt.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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?
LikeLike
“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]
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
Based on the article I’ll be referencing, there’s much more to it than diet and exercise.
LikeLike
Of course there is. Industrialization has outpaced evolution. Sedentary life is the current norm
LikeLike
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 —
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And it certainly wouldn’t be ‘prudent’ to listen to such disinformation. It would be rock-chewingly stupid to do so.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
watch for language like “the illness (meaning covid) evolves in unpredictable ways” which hides the fact they don’t understand it fully.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Names?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually, it’s been my experience that scientists are the polar opposite of what you are describing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You seem to say numbers matter but I bet they really don’t matter to you at all. Let’s see you dismiss these numbers.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So packed ICUs due to Covid are… what… a figment of the imagination?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Not ICUs.
LikeLike
A distinction without a difference.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/hospital-overcrowding-windsor-crisis-1.4503107
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
From another article posted Feb 27, 2015:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/hospital-overcrowding-inevitable-in-ontario-expert-says-1.2974339
LikeLiked by 1 person
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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s another report citing an MD concerning the dismal state of affairs in Winnipeg, Manitoba
https://globalnews.ca/news/8250326/manitoba-er-wait-times-leadership-failure/
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So, to be clear, you wear a seat belt when and only you so choose?
LikeLike
Yes. And I choose to wear one, but only while my vehicle is in motion. When parked, I don’t.
LikeLike
You choose to wear one while driving why, exactly?
LikeLike
Because it increases the likelihood of surviving a collision.
LikeLike
Ah.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, what?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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’.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7306972/
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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)
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sure we do. In effect, that’s what all common law is: an imposition.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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, .
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/obesity/who-discussion-paper-on-obesity—final190821.pdf?sfvrsn=4cd6710a_18&download=true
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
https://www.who.int/home/search?indexCatalogue=genericsearchindex1&searchQuery=obesity&wordsMode=AnyWord
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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..
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
Check out Covid risk versus vaccination risk for pregnant women (here).
I’m sorry… you were saying…?
LikeLike
You are missing the point. I don’t care about the covid risk that someone else want to take for themselves. So what?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
I also assisted in autopsies and we wore a mask. Certainly not for the patient
LikeLike
From an abstract on the use of surgical masks during surgery:
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
LikeLike
He handwaved the error on surgical masking and went after the sentence structure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Personal attacks, ridicule, appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, appeals to the majority, appeals to tradition, special pleading, quote mining, strawman arguments, shifting goals posts, loaded questions, etc., are a clear indication that the other side has no real arguments at his/her/their disposal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know, I think you’re right, Ron — the earth is flat.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Case in point. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whether I agree or not with the vaccination policies, his argument is packed with reasoning for for a believer.
I’m wary when science is beyond reproach like ones favorite politician or religion.
LikeLike
Science is a method, Jim. You know that. Self-correction is also built into this method.
I think it reads better: When the *data* is beyond reproach.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed. Science is also a-political but the data is not.
LikeLike
We don’t know the data is beyond reproach. And all scientific knowledge is provisional. There’s no such thing as “scientific proof” of anything — only a best explanation given the current information available.
LikeLike
Who’s “we”?
LikeLike
Anyone who does not have direct access to whatever data happens to be in question And even then, there is no guarantee the data is accurate or complete, or representative of the population as a whole.
LikeLike
If you’re questioning it then you obviously have access to it.
Methodologies are published. Sample sizes/compositions are published. Collected data is published. Conclusions are presented, as are often suggestions for further studies if findings are inconclusive.
I don’t see much nefarious, secretive business going on here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wrote “direct” access to whatever data is in question” for a reason, John. I’m speaking towards data as a general topic, not just the data relating to the topic of this particular post. A published report is not direct access to the data, and the conclusions reached (as stated previously and as you also concur) are always provisional and open to further study.
LikeLike
Ah, so you’re now shifting your argument to data as a ‘general topic.’
You sure that’s suitably nebulous to serve your conspiracy theories? You know, you still have to demonstrate that you do not have “direct” access to published data… whatever that even means.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not shifting anything. Grammar and spelling mistakes aside, I endeavour to choose my words very carefully to remove the opportunity of having my message misconstrued — either accidentally, or intentionally.
The point remains: the only people who have direct, first-hand access to the data are those who initially recorded it, and everyone else is merely a second-hand recipient of that data unless they (re)conduct the experiment/study for themselves.
No conspiracy theories required.
LikeLike
…Except for the conspiracy theory that data is being withheld from you, and/or is being coloured to fool just you, Ron.
LikeLike
Please link to the specific comment(s) in which I made those statements.
LikeLike
LOL!
Scroll up.
LikeLiked by 2 people
All I can see is your own projections into my comments.
Moreover, your stock talking points (FOX news, Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists, etc.) contribute little to the conversation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Q says to touch your nose…
LikeLike
Then I will not comply with that request, because I only listen when Simon says to do things — and sometimes not even then. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
The experts have us exactly where we are today. How does one have so much faith in that?
LikeLike
There is obviously some mincing of numbers when the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu has virtually no change in the world death rate.
97% efficacy when a persons normal immune system is already 99.6% effective.
LikeLike
“mincing of numbers,” or just 100 years of medical advancements?
LikeLike
Certainly is advancing. I think the original argument is whether it’s right to mandate, sanction, and threaten citizens for non compliance. Don’t you think this is playing out just fine? Could it be any different than it is? Is conspiracy any less organic than any other accepted scheme? Eventually all the non compliant genes will be eradicated and we’ll be one big happy family with nothing to argue about.
LikeLike
Right, the original argument was/is the necessity to protect populations against a deadly disease… Just like we do with smallpox, measles, polio, whooping cough, mumps, etc. as well as the diseases we may come in contact with when travelling, like yellow fever.
You drifted into a wild conspiracy theory suggesting the numbers were being “minced” 😉
LikeLike
“Just like we do with smallpox, measles, polio, whooping cough, mumps, etc
You really think that’s a fair comparison? It’s more like the seasonal flu with constant tail chasing, guess work, and endless vaccination and no cure.
LikeLike
We can cure it all right now with gene splicing tech… But that’s another (enormously fun) GATACA debate.
Do you think we should ‘construct’ humans who’re not only free of diseases (including things like alcoholism), but are bigger, stronger, smarter?
LikeLike
Construct better humans? Not really. Who gets to decide which traits will be valuable in a future setting? These things always change. I think I’ll let evolution do it’s thing. It has a long track record. Maybe we should splice in a believer gene so everyone thinks the same. That would be a boring existence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The topic of this post — for those who might have forgotten — was given within the very first paragraph:
To date, very few commenters have dared to touch — let alone justify — the draconian responses and policies set in place in response to this disease.
LikeLike
Ain’t polio a bitch, eh!
Oh, wait…
LikeLike
Another sarcastic response. COVID ain’t polio. But even if it were, the ends (imprisoning the healthy and forced injection mandates) don’t justify the means.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not sarcastic. Factual. You know, full of real world *facts* and *data* as to the efficacy of vaccines against deadly diseases.
Imprisoning the healthy? LOL! Q says calm down, Tucker.
LikeLike
Fact: the efficacy of the experimental COVID “vaccine” wanes after six months — especially for the elderly and those with pre-existing health conditions. That’s why “booster” shots are now being recommended for those two groups and the Israeli “health” minister has forewarned that the “green passport” will be denied to anyone who doesn’t get another
hit. . .fix. . . dose.https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-may-deny-green-passports-to-people-who-have-not-received-covid-booster-1.10147312
I said, “God damn, God, God damn the pusher man.”
As for evidence of imprisoning the healthy, search “COVID lockdowns”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Experiment?
You mean the FDA approved vaccine?
But hey, let’s not let facts get in the way of a good Ancient Aliens rant….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, experimental. Per their own press releases, the drug manufacturer’s long-term clinical trials will continue until 2022/3. So saying that all the data is in, is just plain out wrong.
As per the FDA, it’s little more than the fox guarding the henhouse. The former commissioner — Scott Gottlieb — now works for Pfizer, and one of the current candidates vetted for consideration to assume that role now, has close ties to the pharmaceutical industry (paid consultant to be exact) and was the same one who approved the drugs that led to the opioid crisis during his first term as FDA commissioner.
So if that’s also a conspiracy, it’s a pretty open and in-your-face one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And twist that tin foil hat a little tighter…
LikeLike
If you look at what Italy is doing with the vax passes and workers around the country, it’s not really far fetched to see it here when the rest of the world has been following their lead on lockdowns, green passes and then sanctions against the unvaccinated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The ‘protestors’ are idiots being herded by right wing US political operatives. Here is an article about it happening in Oz from just yesterday:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Really? Well, then, exactly which of my statements fell into the “tinfoil hat” category?
Was it the one where I claimed the Pfizer study wouldn’t end until 2022/3?
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1#studydesign
Or the one about former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb working for Pfizer?
https://www.pfizer.com/scott_gottlieb-md
Or the one about former FDA commissioner Rob Califf (now vetted to reprise that role) ceiving consulting fees from drug compaines?
https://web.archive.org/web/20150301020601/https://www.dcri.org/about-us/conflict-of-interest/Califf-COI_2014
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here in Washington we still have a statewide mask mandate even though it’s not effective according to the experts. Our governor is an executive order junkie high on himself. Do we trust all this if we can’t trust that?
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tildeb is arguing against masks.
I find it interesting as Ron and Tildeb are two that I rely on for reason and consistency. Yet here we are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not arguing against masks; as I’ve explained into the void and with as much effect, masks capture droplets. Droplets can be covered in virus. Reducing this spread of droplets is an effective way of reducing the risk of infecting SOMEONE ELSE.
The point that seems to have confused you is that I’ve explained that the virus itself is too small to be captured by a mask (even the N95s unless properly fitted sealed PLUS goggles only reduces a percentage). So the mask is not a protection for ONE’S SELF.
Why did I say this?
Preventing the community spread of the virus requires more than a mask, more than good health, more than a robust immune response. I wonder what that might be… if I intentionally plug my ears and pretend every medical association around the globe and a scientific consensus by the world’s best and brightest infectious disease experts have it all wrong.
Golly, gee… I’d better ask Ron. He seems to have access to the important data the entire medical community has missed AND he knows how to interpret it better and with greater insight than all these highly trained people. Yup, Ron is the data guy. He’ll let us know which data to use and how to interpret it all correctly. He’s no shill of Big Pharma and the coup into totalitarianism that mandates foreshadow. (Just like what happened with the mandatory smallpox vaccine. Chaos and disorder and the rise of liberal democracy, donchaknow. Makes on shudder.
So I’m sure he’s equally well beyond the curve of every medical professional on the planet on masking, too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TL;DR
I, tildeb, don’t like being confronted with data that goes against my carefully-crafted beliefs, so I will post another long-winded rant ridiculing the person who brought it to everyone’s attention and call it a day.
LikeLike
Well, you also pointed out to me that the surgeon wears the mask to protect the patient. Words—without having attended a surgery will do this. Your specific word on masks was “um, nah” if I remember correctly.
The totalitarian ways are already here, if you haven’t noticed. Just try traveling without your card…papers please.
LikeLike
By the way, the person on the right is free to attend events if he is vaccinated. Then it’s ok to spread covid here if you’ve had the shots.
LikeLike
I’m confused — are you arguing against efforts to mitigate and/or slow/contain the spread of a deadly disease through a population?
LikeLike
No I’m not arguing against it at all. In fact I haven’t even had a sniffle in 20 months, probably due to masking, no handshaking, and social distancing. What is wrong is Tildeb making his own message on masking based on the data, while Ron is making his own message out of the data, and as you can see, there are a lot of mixed signals and ambiguous rules that make no sense at all.
You realize a vaccinated person can still spread covid, yet are allowed to go to events and wotnot because of compliance, not science. It’s a mess of idiocy. Now vaccines are mandatory but spreading covid isn’t regulated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
LikeLiked by 1 person
The silliness will come to an end when the people finally rise up en masse to say “SCREW YOUR MANDATES” (preferably with an Arnold Schwarzenegger accent) and then go on with their lives ignoring the non-sensical and contradictory edicts coming from the politicians. But that requires a spine.
“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.”― Malcolm X
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are correct. “Listen to the ‘science’ experts” is no different than “listen to the religious experts”. Who exactly are these experts and what are their qualifications? And why are they never cited directly?
I look at the actual data, not the declarations of policymakers who claim to be following the advice of unnamed “experts” cheered or their MSM cheerleaders citing unsourced studies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
cheeredLikeLike
How about this longitudinal data for families relevant to how many have been vaxed here?
If it were based on immunocompromised in some way, these charts would not look like these do. Vaccination mitigates risk across all metrics.
LikeLike
Here’s the 7 day rolling death rate average including 3rd shot. Again, if morbidity was the key factor as Ron keeps on believing, these averages would not look like this. Ron is wrong. Factually wrong.
LikeLike
Of course, research never stops. Novovax uses nanoparticles that is similar to using ‘live’ virus’ but in a much smaller dose to emulate an infection and give the body time to develop various immune responses. Here is the take away:
” Efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 100%, and efficacy against severe disease alone was 100% (post-hoc). Efficacy amongst high-risk populations was 91%”
Against delta? 93.6% efficacy.
Sample size? 30,000 Stage 3 trial reports. Fact sheet here.
LikeLike
According to blood donations, combining vaccinated and those with natural immunity, roughly 80% in the US have covid antibodies. That’s supposed to do the trick
The death toll from 2020 worldwide held at 7.6 people per 1000 of population, the same as the year before and the year before that. It’s either a miracle, or things aren’t what they seem with everything covid in every statistic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Now why haven’t all infectious disease experts simply used Google and blood donations? They are all such fools!
LikeLike
I didn’t say that, but I’m betting the death toll isn’t any different for 2021. I could be wrong, but so far estimates are in the ball park. Sometimes death is inevitable no matter what your flavor of flu season.
LikeLike
It’s not JUST about death, Jim. It’s about all the effects of the virus. Using this kind of information as if relevant to vaccinations and why they are important says more about the state of knowledge the person using it has than what the table actually says.
LikeLike
I was looking at a similar chart that projected upward trend to 2100 even prior to COVID, mostly as a result of an aging population.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate
LikeLiked by 1 person
They do combine several methods to arrive at the predictions. With an aging boomer population we all know what that means.
Since the beginning I’ve held this is an overwhelming example of bringing a gun to a knife fight. We now have bazookas and tanks for this one, as well as a hotline to report party goers to the policiá.
LikeLike
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.”
LikeLiked by 4 people
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.
LikeLike
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 …
LikeLike
No, I get the point: it’s called patient shaming.
LikeLike
They need shaming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gets frustrating when the cattle don’t behave?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like following road rules? 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I like this guy.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLiked by 2 people
Just called into Twiter, and this was the first tweet:
LikeLiked by 3 people
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
“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
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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:
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/
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Stick around. The real fun begins when he starts handing out yellow stars and passes for free helicopter rides to Medical Lake.
LikeLike
I’ve taken many patients to Eastern State and no doubt about it, we are all on the scale somewhere.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If his sensibility doesn’t at least make one think again about getting vaccinated, nothing will.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.
LikeLike
I’ll say one thing for you, Ron … you’re VERY good at missing (avoiding?) the point. Have a nice Sunday.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This makes little sense. Granted delta started before the vaccine, but what will come after it? This is also at odds with other publications.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-vaccines-can-drive-pathogens-to-evolve-20180510/
”Just as antibiotics breed resistance in bacteria, vaccines can incite changes that enable diseases to escape their control. Researchers are working to head off the evolution of new threats”.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Page 177. What evidence would you require?
https://www.fda.gov/media/144859/download?fbclid=IwAR2uywteXWQK_tb_VwjH2oVbOqW1zqPvd78ApDaOiREq_eZ7aLvvEQV4TI8
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“ 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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 3 people
yet, many vaccine programs did fail.
LikeLiked by 2 people
<a href="https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/"This site helps explain some of these questions and issues if anyone’s interested.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Sorry for the broken link. Try Try this one
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The number of headstones for dead babies and children in graveyards validates the data and effectiveness of vacines.
LikeLike
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
We need to get off this rock and into space in a permanent way very, very quickly.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Emerging unassisted twice on earth would be enough.
Alas…
LikeLiked by 2 people
I always liked that question, why never the same god twice? It’s a gem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And you’re a sweetheart 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To better avoid the generalities you attribute to me, what’s the specific formula for that balance you mention?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve never driven in Latin America… no blinkers is actually a safe way to drive.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
I know what you’re talking about, Jim, but it’s not a good thing.
LikeLike
Isn’t it? What is happiness is in the equation? To the expat it may seem crazy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
It works because you don’t trust your fellow motorists. It is trusting the mistrust and going with the flow of things.
LikeLike
I’m going to just pretend you’re drunk-typing 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Think of it like social distancing. Maybe THAT is our best chance at survival.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
Witness the carnage in the complete absence of traffic signals and road rules:
It’s madness, I tell you. Sheer madness!
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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…
LikeLiked by 1 person
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/
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve responded, but didn’t realize there were embedded links so it’s gone into moderation. (Sorry Jim)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Found it
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I almost find it amusing g that all the sudden that our government cares so much to protect us—once again.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If ALL the facts were known about ALL the various and sundry “government” actions, we would not be able to breathe for the “stink.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I certainly agree with your general view that we should be highly resistant to trust government or give them too much power. I am not sure we can say how many deaths government has protected us from. It is one of those counterfactuals. Yes when we have government there have been few murders. But if we didn’t have government how many murders would there be? As far as government killing people through wars that of course also raises difficult ethical questions. But if you mean the deaths caused by Fascists or Communists or other tyrannical governments then yes I agree that provides very clear historical evidence that we will be better off if we err on the side of keeping power in the hands of individuals instead of giving it to governments.
LikeLiked by 2 people
For myself, the question concerns morality. I abide by the principle that no man has the moral right to initiate force against another and that all human interactions must remain voluntary — IOW, that it is morally wrong to coerce others into doing things to which they are opposed.
So I am not against forming hierarchical organizations or voluntary cooperatives in order to fulfill common goals, per se — I’m merely against the proposition that such organizations be granted authorization to initiate force as a means to achieving those goals. And the problem is that many people subscribe to this quaint notion that the government is some sort of benevolent mystical entity charged with safeguarding the welfare of the population, when in reality it is little more than a group of men claiming to possess the moral right to initiate force and violence against others within some arbitrarily-determined geographic boundary. Never challenged is the method by which they obtained this presupposed moral right to exercise authority over others, because I certainly don’t recall ever granting it to them — nor would I ever willingly want to, because I deem it as absurd as wanting to choose my own slave master.
Moreover, it’s all just an illusion: their power rests entirely upon our collective willingness to grant recognition to their authority and collapses the moment a sizeable portion of the population decides to abandon this charade by ignoring their demands and edicts. How long do you suppose any government would survive if everyone stopped remitting taxes and resisted any attempts to collect them with extreme prejudice?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ron, IMO, this — their power rests entirely upon our collective willingness to grant recognition to their authority and collapses the moment a sizeable portion of the population decides to abandon this charade by ignoring their demands and edicts (emphasis mine) — is exactly what December 6th and continuing efforts was/are all about.
For all intents and purposes, it sure seems to me that this particular segment of society is doing its damnedest to seize the power you speak of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I confess that I don’t much follow the news. What happened on Dec. 6?
LikeLike
Whoops! JANUARY 6th. (I think you knew my date was off and just wanted to put in a jab! 😋)
LikeLike
Put in a jab? Valhalla, no! As my comment history on this post would suggest, I’m decidedly against it.
As for January 6, I still had to look it up (I’m not good with remembering dates or numbers). Apparently, some people did something but it was a mostly peaceful protest. 🙂
LikeLike
😄🖖
LikeLike
“I abide by the principle that no man has the moral right to initiate force against another and that all human interactions must remain voluntary”
The problem is that as soon as someone say a rapist decides they will force someone else to do something your ideal world becomes impossible. If you decide to force the rapist not to rape then they are not refraining voluntarily. If you decide to let them rape then obviously you are violating the rule that interactions must remain voluntary.
“And the problem is that many people subscribe to this quaint notion that the government is some sort of benevolent mystical entity charged with safeguarding the welfare of the population, when in reality it is little more than a group of men claiming to possess the moral right to initiate force and violence against others within some arbitrarily-determined geographic boundary. Never challenged is the method by which they obtained this presupposed moral right to exercise authority over others, because I certainly don’t recall ever granting it to them — nor would I ever willingly want to, because I deem it as absurd as wanting to choose my own slave master.”
Here I agree with you very much! In that I would say we should always be very leery of giving the state rights to control our lives by force.
In general I think the libertarian view that we should only allow the state to take action when we think we would have a moral right to take action is a good one. So if someone was attacked me or my family or stole something I believe I would have a moral right to take action against them. But for example if I went door to door asking for charitable donations to some worthy cause and the person refused to give me money I would generally not have a right to force them to give to the charity!
When people use governmental power to force people to do things they do not think they have a moral right to force then we are need to be very careful and guarded. I agree that people should start thinking about this. People just act as though the government wielding power is the answer to everything. I think we are very much aligned on that general idea even if we likely disagree about particulars.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Curious. You write: So if someone was attacked me or my family or stole something I believe I would have a moral right to take action against them.
Since I interpret your comment to mean you don’t feel the government should step in, what kind of “action” against them would you consider as your “moral right”?
LikeLiked by 3 people
I do think the government has a right to step in that case. I am saying we give the government much more authority to step in with physical force way beyond that. For example if I choose not to give to a charity or to fund retirement plans etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To clarify, a prohibition against the initiation of force simply means you do not have the right to harm someone who has done you no harm or injury, but does not preclude the use of force for purposes of self-defense or aiding in the defense of another. So when the rapist decides to violate the bodily autonomy of his/her unwilling victim, the use of counterforce against the rapist is morally justified.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok what if someone you didn’t invite wants to come in your family room and sit there? Can you “force” them out? What if they decide they want to take your food can you use force to prevent that? How would that work?
LikeLiked by 1 person
To impose yourself upon another or take their possessions without their consent is to initiate force — is it not? Perhaps the quickest way to determine whether something is right or wrong is to ask yourself whether or not you would still find it acceptable if the roles were reversed and you found yourself on the receiving end in a similar situation.
So to answer your question: I’d politely ask them to leave, but if they refused to do so voluntarily, I would have them forcibly removed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anymore if a stranger comes in your house you better be ready to use full force without the polite tendencies of our culture. My aunt and uncle were home invaded, tied up and lived in the house with the perps for four days. Then they left. The only reason they weren’t killed was luck. Eventually they were able to get free and call for help. The bad guys were never caught.
LikeLike
Reminds of this description by analogy of libertarians:
House cats. They are convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don’t appreciate or understand.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It reminds you of that but has nothing to do with my comment. This is where liberalism fails real world practical knowledge. Your books may be lacking you. After having my own experience with an attempted home invasion just a couple weeks ago, were it not for a little planning and awareness I would not be here commenting today.
Your attitude may work well with a cop on every corner, but here we wait—and die if left to liberal policy.
LikeLike
I fully agree, but the situation you described is a little more intense than the one I originally had in mind when I composed my reply to Joe. My thoughts were focused on an obnoxious houseguest, rather than a home invader.
LikeLike
It appears any one could turn into the other. Just look at this blog…
LikeLike
“To impose yourself upon another or take their possessions without their consent is to initiate force — is it not?”
I don’t know the guy just wants to sit in your family room and no one else is already taking the seat. Maybe he would be fine if you wanted to sit in his family room. Is that your view that he has started using force?
It seems to me that you think people are justified in using force to protect their property. But then we get into who rightfully owns the property! And that is why we need governments and clear rules. If it is anarchy you basically have mob justice. So I do think we need government but I also agree we should try to keep government to a minimum and pretty much just enforcing rights we feel we should be able to enforce and dealing with externalities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The pertinent question isn’t whether or not you would feel fine if someone sat in your family room, but how you would react if someone took such liberties without your express consent. That is to say, the implicit argument here is that you reserve the right to request to be left alone and unmolested by others. And please note that my response advocated making a polite, diplomatic request to refrain from doing so as a first step rather than proceeding directly to the use of physical force.
When it comes to property rights, you rightfully own the things that you have acquired through honest means and therefore retain the moral right to defend yourself against the theft of your property. And it bears repeating that I’m using a strict definition of anarchy here — i.e., an absence of rulers, not an absence of rules. While an unbiased adjudicator may occasionally be required to settle disputes over the rightful ownership of property, there is no requirement stipulating that said adjudicator must be a government authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With anarchy, force IS the adjudicator.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good point.
But you know, I saw a documentary a while ago, and Ron might be right about his grand global conspiracy. The doco claimed the world’s elite had pooled their money and resources and were building these HUGE, secret doomsday arks in the Himalaya inside of which they will save themselves while the world drowns and burns and is crushed in all these earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanoes. If I remember, it was called 2012, or something. Just spitballing here, but the *vaccine* windfall Ron has so rightly called attention to would pay for a few arks, wouldn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe you should read up a bit on anarchy. You could start with revolutionary Catalonia in the late 30s or you could really go to town with Peter Marshall’s book Demanding the Impossible.
But even if you were right, how would your view of anarchy be any worse than the statist monopolies on legitimised violence we have now?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ok how would the adjudicator that enforces the rules not be the same as a judge? Is it just that people can choose to be part of this set of rules or not? Does everyone decide to literally sign on to “the rules” when they become 18? If some people do not agree with the rules about what constitutes “rightful ownership” and come up with a different set then what? I’m just not seeing how you can do better than a government if you want to forcefully enforce property rights.
What about negligence? What if you did not intend to cause damage to someone but you do it anyway. Is an adjudicator going to decide if you need to pay something to the other person and how much?
LikeLike
Exactly. Anarchism and private property are incompatible (though personal property is a different matter).
Ursula Le Guin’s novel The Dispossessed makes the distinction pretty clear I think.
But many anarchists are also caught up in the notion of ‘impartial’ adjudicators – as if concentrating that power in the hands of an individual doesn’t immediately erase their impartiality. A former anarchist colleague of mine even suggested ‘crime’ wasn’t really criminal but pathological and that in an anarchist society psychiatrists should be able to ‘diagnose’ criminality and impose appropriate (and enforceable) ‘therapy’. I hope he was completely ignorant of the history and practice of psychiatry when he made that suggestion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What makes you assume the adjudicator would need to “enforce” the rules? Usually when two or more parties call for an independent arbitrator to settle a dispute, they have already granted tacit consent to “follow the rules” and act in accordance with the decision handed down by that person. If they reserve the right to ignore that decision, then the whole exercise was pointless and they’d might as well have settled the matter with pistols at dawn.
The reality of the situation is this: for those who naturally follow the golden rule, laws are superfluous; and for those who don’t, they are of little consequence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The basic formulation of the Golden Rule is obviously a rubbish moral maxim. Not everyone wants the same things so treating others as you’d want to be treated can constitute anything from worship to abuse (not that those two things are incompatible).
Some formulations require you to know what others want even if it’s not what you want. That’s obviously limited by empathy – which is delusional. You can’t really know what another wants and the further the other is from your own outlook and experience the more flawed your imaginary empathy becomes.
The Golden Rule just doesn’t hold up as a categorical imperative. Instead it’s a formula for tribalism to the point of solipsism. It only guides you to treat others well inasmuch as they share your values, preferences and aspirations or inasmuch as you can imagine theirs; and no-one can fully imagine another.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The “golden rule” I proffered was: “. . . that no man has the moral right to initiate force against another and that all human interactions must remain voluntary — IOW, that it is morally wrong to coerce others into doing things to which they are opposed.”
https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2021/09/09/bioethics-what-is-right/comment-page-1/#comment-41384
If you find fault with that stance, please point it out.
LikeLike
Well, I can buy into that. But can you?
Do you think criminals can only go to prison on a voluntary basis?
Do you think those designated insane can’t be forcibly restrained or medicated?
Do you think young children can’t be forced to stay off busy roads?
LikeLike
I can’t (and don’t pretend) to address or proffer a ready-made solution for every conceivable situation or scenario presented, but the basic premise assumes the existence of rational actors making informed decisions (a big assumption, I know), which IMO lays the groundwork for a more tenable social policy framework than the one that informs our current situation.
So to answer your specific questions:
1. The convict has (conceivably) already violated the code and thus forfeits the right to complain about the consequences stemming from that decision (assuming here that those consequences are proportionate to the crime that was committed and that the crime was an actual transgression against another individual rather than just the violation of some arbitrary civil statute).
2. Well first off: who gets to decide who is insane? Or to what degree? But assuming that such a determination can be made, then the overriding question becomes: is the individual a harm to themselves or others? IF not then the answer is no. Otherwise it would be yes.
3. By definition, young children lack the cognitive ability to assess risk and danger, so the answer is no until such time as they gain those abilities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought that was exactly what ‘golden rule’ implied. Or is it only golden until a situation rendering it perverse arises, then it turns into fool’s gold?
Maybe no rules are natural. They’re just man-made conventions limited to specific situations. Maybe we have to find our way without rules. And maybe a social contract is only good until it’s time to rip it up.
The country I live in isn’t just colonial settler like the ones claiming sovereignty over Native American lands. It’s convict colonial settler. Some of those who stole the lands of my ancestors were sent here against their will for stealing bread to feed their children. So what would have been the crime? Violating the code ‘thou shalt not steal’? Or letting your children starve to stay on the right side of the law?
LikeLiked by 1 person
My opening sentence was meant to serve as a notification that I would not entertain a steady stream of “what if” questions. Nonetheless, I addressed the questions submitted and note that you raised no objection to any of those answers. And as a sign of good will, I will address your follow-up question regarding Australian colonization, as well.
IF the British aristocrats had followed my moral principle, there would have been no colonial settlements.
LikeLike
Ahh, but the Brits had their rules and rationalisations to guide them.
You see, Australia was ‘deserted and uncivilised’ when James Cook planted a Union Jack on it. It didn’t belong to anyone recognised as human under British laws. It was terra nullius.
So “no man has the moral right to initiate force against another”. But what if the victim isn’t a man? What if it’s a child who lacks the cognitive ability to assess risk or danger? What if it’s a child-like race who lack the ability to understand realpolitik or defend themselves against against musket wielding imperial powers? What if it’s someone who is such a danger to themselves or others it justifies taking her children from her and raising them in a different, more enlightened culture.
In 1851 a pioneering American psychiatrist named Samuel Cartwright discovered ‘drapetomania’ – the pathological tendency of some Negro slaves to run away from their rightful masters. Obviously they were a danger to themselves and others. They would be forced to steal – possibly violently – if they wanted to eat and risked being shot on sight by law-abiding citizens. There were no antipsychotics or ECT back then so for acute drapetomania Cartwright suggested whipping the Devil out of them. Chronic cases were treated by amputating their toes.
By the 1960s civil rights era such treatment of African Americans was obviously a terrible injustice. There’s nothing wrong with being an African American who wanted to be free. Unless he was gay. Homosexuals were considered criminally insane. Those who were treatment resistant to aversion therapy – electric shocks to their genitals if they were aroused by homoerotic imagery – were given psychosurgery. Many neurosurgeons were convinced it was a brain disease caused by the hypotrophy of certain ganglia. So they opened their skulls and cut the gay out.
There’s always designated subhumans about. And there’s always exceptions allowing them to be forcibly dispossessed, bombed, tortured or enslaved. Of course later we’ll look back and call that sort of behaviour unconscionable. We’ll be doing it to someone else by then.
So we know you think young children, correctly designated crazies and those who commit criminal transgressions against other individuals aren’t deserving of the human rights of a ‘man’. Any other subhumans you’d like to add to that list?
LikeLike
I’m confused.
By what process did you derive “So we know you think young children, correctly designated crazies and those who commit criminal transgressions against other individuals aren’t deserving of the human rights of a ‘man’.” from my moral precept (“no man has the moral right to initiate force against another”)?
Because you’ve pointed out examples of human behaviour (colonisation, slavery, tribalism, bigotry, scapegoating, etc. ) that run counter to the very principle I’m proposing.
LikeLike
You’ve shown you’re prepared to make exceptions as to who constitutes ‘another’ (man) under your golden rule, even when the person being subjected to force hasn’t initiated it. I pointed out that such golden rules have always received lip service – usually enforceable among privileged members of society – but there have always been exceptions that serve to justify initiation of force against others.
Has it occurred to you that in a generation or so the exceptions you make might also be seen as abuses by ‘right-thinking’ golden rule advocates?
History would suggest it very likely.
History would also suggest it likely the exceptions would have shifted to new stigmatised groups that rules advocates would see as self-evidently unfit for protection under their rules.
LikeLike
I still don’t follow your line of reasoning. At no point did I state that any of the above individuals “aren’t deserving of the human rights of a ‘man’” — unless you mean to argue that restraining someone from violating the rights of others constitutes a violation of their basic human rights. (In which case I would argue it is a justified exception, because it would be somewhat disingenuous to cry foul play for being prevented from engaging in foul play.)
Furthermore, by definition, a convict is someone who has already been found guilty of harming another, so it is incorrect to say that such a person is being subjected to force even though s/he hasn’t initiated it yet. And the same can be said for preventing someone who lacks the capacity to make sound decisions from committing harm against others.
As for preventing others from committing harm against themselves — at first glance it appears to violate the principle. But does it really? Because the principle also carries with it an implied presumption of such force being used to cause intentional harm, which is the polar opposite of using force to prevent harm. I’ll grant that an argument could be made against forcibly preventing someone from committing suicide, but I would consider that to be an edge case scenario.
As to the rest of your comment, a principle stands or fails on its own merits independent of how many people choose to observe it or how badly things get twisted to include what wasn’t intended or mean what wasn’t meant.
LikeLike
That’s exactly what I’m arguing.
You can never know if someone is going to harm someone until they do it. But you can convince yourself it’s a reasonable conclusion to reach if you start by stigmatising them for their DSM diagnosis or the colour of their skin.
You seem to be broadening your ‘golden rule’ beyond initiating force to ‘violating the rights of others’, which I’m sure you know can be stretched into a very wide brush.
So using illegal drugs, selling sex or taking things deemed (by authorities) to be someone else’s property is ‘harming others’ sufficiently to warrant imposing force?
And what about remandees who haven’t been found guilty of anything but are still forcibly imprisoned?
Methinks you’re holding a very broad brush there. Is there anything you disapprove of that’s beyond its reach?
Perhaps you should stop calling your moral tenet a ‘golden rule’ – which is usually taken to mean a universalist categorical imperative – and call it a ‘Humpty Dumpty rule’ instead.
LikeLike
Then you are arguing against a straw man because you are framing this in a manner that does not come close to representing what I’ve been discussing.
First off, I want to reiterate that the principle I advocate for is one of cooperation and voluntary human interaction in which resorting to the use of force — i.e., physical violence, threats of physical violence and/or coercion — to get one’s way is not morally permitted. So when I talk of prevention, I’m speaking about stopping someone who is already actively engaged (or about to become actively engaged) in committing harm. Nor am I broadening the scope of the principle; because by definition, the initiation of force constitutes a violation of someone’s rights — specifically, the negative right to be left alone in peace.
Second, I don’t know where you got the “stigmatising them for their DSM diagnosis or the colour of their skin” part because it certainly doesn’t reflect anything I wrote. In fact, I specifically stated: “who gets to decide who is insane? Or to what degree? But assuming that such a determination can be made, then the overriding question becomes: is the individual a harm to themselves or others? IF not then the answer is no. Otherwise it would be yes.”
And skin colour wasn’t mentioned at all.
I already addressed that in my initial response when I wrote: “assuming . . . that the crime was an actual transgression against another individual rather than just the violation of some arbitrary civil statute.” Drug and prostitution laws fall into the latter category, but you’ll have to clarify what you mean by “taking things deemed (by authorities) to be someone else’s property” — especially the “(by authorities)” part — because I’m not sure what you are referring to.
What about it?
It appears we’re talking at cross-purposes because you’re framing this entire discussion from the perspective of someone who advocates for a state monopoly on violence, while I’m advocating for a system based on voluntary exchange and cooperation. In effect, you’re arguing against yourself, because I’ve already agreed that interfering in the lives of others is completely unwarranted unless their intent is to cause harm. So there is no reason I would ever want to imprison people who haven’t been found guilty of anything.
I explained what I meant from the outset and even provided a link to my initial comment fleshing out the details, so you are without excuse for interpreting it in any other manner than the one already presented.
LikeLike
The fact is that deontological (rules based) ethics is just as morally bankrupt as consequentialist ethics. Every situation is unique and infinitely complex. There will never be a big enough book of rules to cover all situations and if there was you’d never have time to look them up before having to make moral decisions.
If you’re handing your morality over to external rules or rationalisations you’re not being ethical at all. You’re absolving yourself of morality in the same way as if you simply bowed to a fuhrer. You’ve made yourself into an ethical automaton. Your freedom of choice no longer exists. You’re no more ‘ethical’ than a car that obediently starts when you turn the ignition.
Being able to act according to your own ethics is the essence of freedom. If you’re a slave to your ‘base impulses’ you’re neither ethical nor free and no rationalisation or rule book will ever change that.
So what are your morals? Obviously I can never know. I can’t even know what mine are from moment to moment. But by making myself as aware as possible not of my rationalisations and not of my designated rule book but of my ethical instincts and intuitions in any given situation is the best guide I know of for making a free moral decision. What Hume called ‘moral sentiment’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I practice the moral code that I presented — i.e., I endeavor to deal with each individual on a voluntary basis free of any coercion or dishonest intent, and expect same in return.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Including if you become a danger to yourself or others?
If you live long enough it’s almost certain to happen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course. But loss of personal autonomy due to mental or physically infirmity is an entirely different kettle of fish than loss of personal autonomy due to malevolent actors.
LikeLike
But surely the actors aren’t malevolent if they’re acting to protect you from yourself or others from you. Of course there’s the problem that people are notoriously poor at assessing the dangerousness of others – especially others who seem quite different to themselves. But that’s just a technicality, right? Best to exercise an abundance of caution and lock you up right away. Someday you’ll be dangerous and we wouldn’t want to leave it too late.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, I don’t follow. Individuals going about their daily lives without intent of causing harm to others elicit no call to action, whereas those whose actions threaten harm to others elicit calls for restraint. The key determining factor revolves around the “initiation” of force — that is to say, who is the one that is initiating the threat of violence or harm to others, not in how you respond to that threat. I’m not advocating for pacifism here.
LikeLike
I was attempting to point out that unless something else kills you first someday you’ll suffer an ABI, be diagnosed with a mental illness or descend into dementia and would be considered ‘childlike’ or ‘a danger to self or others’.
Then ‘benevolent’ people would feel just as justified in initiating force against you – for ‘your own good’ of course – as you are about using it against children playing on roads or those you’d consider ‘a harm to themselves or others’.
Of course the problem then becomes anticipating harm before it’s already happened. Those tasked with doing so will inevitably seek to use force increasingly pre-emptively to avoid facing consequences for failing to prevent it. That’s why there’s orders of magnitude more people under psychiatric detention or forced medication than there are people with mental illness diagnoses who commit harm to themselves or others.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, and I’m prepared to accept that loss of autonomy is the natural consequence of losing the mental or physical capability of looking after oneself, because I find it preferable to the stark alternative: total neglect.
LikeLike
And how pre-emptively would you accept force being used?
As soon as a shrink diagnoses you with a major depressive or psychotic illness?
When you lose the ability to drive safely and the insight needed to recognise that?
After the third time you leave the house forgetting to take sufficient environmental protection or PEP?
The first time someone overhears you saying your life isn’t worth living?
That’s the thing Ron. If you stretch the horizon and a safety buffer far enough there’s nothing anyone does that can’t be seen as a potential threat to yourself or others. And the way our societies work mean that those who are most stigmatised – those with mental health diagnoses, racial minorities, those with criminal records … – will always be seen as the most likely to be dangerous and so warranting the lowest threshold of protection against use of force. That will especially be the case during times of social stress and turmoil when people are looking around for scapegoats.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Larry was getting dementia. He’d been in two minor accidents is a week and left the scene of both, but he couldn’t remember why his car was damaged. We told him to stop driving and live the rest of his life—with his dogs out in the ranch. 80 acres of lightly wooded pasture, a greenhouse and some geese. He agreed. “Don’t ever put me away” he said. “This is where I want to die.”
Larry again decided to drive the 10 mile stretch to go to the post office. It went well til he forgot to put the Jeep in park, ran over himself and wound up in the hospital where the doctors (three of them) concurred that Larry will never go back home. His assets are now being used to pay for his stay at the memory care facility, at $7500 a month. He hates it there, and all he can remember is his dogs and his geese, his wife’s grave on the land—and his gun and gold collection. Little does he know it’s all been liquidated—even his wife’s oriental collection and his Buddhist statues. The dogs and geese have been rehomed, the greenhouse auctioned and dismantled and ADT is now monitoring his timber framed property—all because he drove to the post office.
True story.
Now he’s eating better (the care facility is going to squeeze out a few more years) as he’s gained some weight back and looks a little better, but Larry will never remember nor appreciate that. “Let me out of this jail”, he says every time we visit. The doctors, Larry. We’ll talk to the doctors…
LikeLiked by 1 person
What happened to his dogs? (where are they?)
LikeLike
They are with a nice family. They were outside dogs, protecting the geese and property, now they sleep on pillows in the house. They’re spoiled, kids climbing on them. That part worked out, but for a few weeks they were out there alone and depressed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really happy to hear that.
A while ago a rescuer with a shelter found an old man who had something like 15 (maybe even 20?) dogs. All rescues. Soon after this girl found him, and he knew his dogs would be safe, he died. Turned out he was very, very sick and had been simply hanging on because of his dogs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have the geese, and the dogs are vacationing. This has been going on about 2 years now. Larry would drop dead if we ever told him the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And that’s the way of all flesh.
I’m old enough to wonder if I’m already on that slope and to hope that I’m good with being confined and utterly dependent on others for my basic needs. But I’m also old enough to have seen several friends and family members disappear into the clouds of dementia and they didn’t go easily. I practice acceptance on a daily basis but wonder if I’ll eventually lose all that and go back to being fiercely defensive about my youthful notions of autonomy and freedom.
Time will tell, but will I notice?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Larry told me “these people are crazy”, I hate this place!” I told him he was a good looking guy, get yourself a girlfriend. He said “these people shit their pants”, not realizing at the moment that he does too.
Acceptance is the right path. Unless we have a really good family that will take care of us, we will die unexpectedly or live out the remainder in an isolation facility. It’s big business
LikeLiked by 1 person
Call me sentimental, but most of these problems stem from the disintegration of the family unit, and social cohesion in general. Once upon a time families and neighbors cared for and looked our for one. Now we shuffle our kids and elderly off to state-run daycare centres and nursing homes and expect others to handle the responsibility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are confusing what happens when people agree to contractual arbitration clauses when there is a government that will enforce those contracts, with what would happen if there were no government.
LikeLike
I don’t think so. Because even without an enforcer we are prone to follow social rules and customs just for the sake of expediency. For instance, most people voluntarily line up for checkout service at the supermarket in the order of arrival and those who attempt to cut into line are quickly reprimanded without any need of an “official” policy or enforcer.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ok I do think the check out person is the enforcer in that situation. If you try to cut in front of several people the check out person likely will not check you out. But I think you are thinking habits where people are conditioned to rules being enforced will carry over forever when there is no enforcement. I think that is dubious.
But let me ask: if you were robbed or had a family member seriously attacked or killed by someone what do you think would happen if there was no government? What process would you use to go about finding out who did it? If a person you suspected did it wouldn’t let you into their home to check for incriminating evidence that you were really pretty sure was there what would you do? And then what would you do if you were pretty sure you found out who did it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
As to you final question, I wouldn’t say a word about to anyone, ever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t dispute that we’re conditioned to call for an outside enforcer. What I’m proposing it that we break away from this conditioning to explore alternative methods of conflict resolution. As already mentioned, the cashier, and/or people waiting in line are quite capable of policing the situation by themselves without having to call in a third party to do it for them, so why not extend that to other situations?
You ask what would happen if I were robbed and there were no government? Well, I have been burgled a number of times and the police did nothing other than file my report. So how would I be worse off? Or consider the plight of the shopkeepers in California forced to contend with shoplifters because the government has abandoned all attempts to enforce the laws in place. Or the countless businesses that have been burned, looted and vandalized during the Antifa/BLM riots while the police turned a blind eye to the chaos. How are they any better off under the current system?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’ve been burgled and assaulted multiple times and have never called the cops. I was also involved in running a community based response to sexual assault (not vigilantism) that didn’t involve police or courts.
If there’s one thing I’ve learned about crime and law enforcement over my decades of contact with both it’s that there’s very few situations so bad that police aren’t likely to make it worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My experience with law enforcement hasn’t been quiet as dismal, but I think you raise an important point. Encouraging community involvement yields greater dividends than demanding increased state intervention.
LikeLike
I’ve done a lot of deaths in custody work, supporting families of people killed by police, so my dismal experiences may not be entirely representative of public interactions with police. But I think if you talk to someone who has reported a rape to the police you’re probably going to hear something pretty dismal too.
LikeLike
I should probably concede that four of the times I was assaulted I didn’t need to call the police. They were already there. Bashing me. In two cases they were also robbing me. I’ve never been charged with a criminal offence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I learned long ago that the only real difference between the state-sanctioned police force and every other criminal organization is the gang uniform. That , plus the latter has the decency not to insult my intelligence by claiming they’re acting in my best interests.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops. Make that five times. I forgot about the cop who punched me in the guts during a Reclaim the Streets demo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You live in Oz, right? Your (in a collective sense) first mistake was believing that the state officials have a vested interest in safeguarding individual liberties. Your second was voluntarily surrendering your weapons to the state under the pretense that doing so would procure you greater safety. Your third is your unwavering belief that pleading for mercy will grant you relief from your current predicament.
As Malcolm X noted:
“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, being from Australia and of Aboriginal descent I was never under the illusion the state was here to protect me. But also I was never prone to Hollywood cowboy fantasies that my collection of rifles and shotguns was ever going to protect me from state violence. In fact it would more likely have given police the excuse to blow me away.
Since I was forced to surrender my beloved guns – along with most other Australian gun owners – there has been zero mass shootings and only three mass killings of any kind, compared to 2-3 per year before the ban. And there’s been no uptick in police killings of civilians either (though neither has it declined).
Maybe the US could learn from that, though to do so it would first have to drop its John Wayne mentality.
I agree with Malcolm X, but I don’t kid myself that the way to take your freedom back from a nation-state with a multi-billion dollar police and military budget is with a locker full of small-arms. It doesn’t seem to be working so well for Americans so far. The person most likely to be killed by privately owned firearms in the US is the owner. The next most likely are his/her family members. Doesn’t look like a path to freedom to me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amazing how Jim’s post has taken on a life of its own!
Your remarks about guns is close to home. I live with an AVID gun-owner … and although I truly doubt in my heart of hearts that he would display the John Wayne mentality you mentioned, I do know he would be VERY upset if guns were outlawed in the U.S.
In many ways, it’s discouraging to read the statistics of Australia since the removal of guns because such statistics most likely will never become a part of the U.S. 😞
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was heartbroken to give up my guns. I’d worked hard as a teenager to earn the money and do the research to get just the ones I wanted. I’d spent many hours cleaning them, accessorising them, maintaining them and practicing with them so they and I in concert could do what I wanted from them. I hugely admired their engineering and efficiency in what they did. I had many fond memories of hunting trips and shooting contests tied up with them. But I don’t think I ever had what I called the John Wayne mentality.
What I meant by that is the notion promoted by Hollywood that there’s no problem that can’t be solved by a sufficiently rugged individual armed with the right gun. There’s even otherwise intelligent people in the US who think they can free themselves from oppressive government authority that way.
Maybe I should call it the second amendment mentality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think you and he would have gotten along VERY well. Most likely the two of you would have spent many hours in deep discussion related to all things guns. I’m NOT a fan and I get a bit frustrated at his ever-present and ongoing desire to purchase things gun-related (cleaning tools, magazines, reloading equipment, etc.) Reading your regrets, however, has helped me to understand a bit better why he is so very much against the removal of guns in the U.S.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John Wayne rode off the silver screen (and world stage) more than four decades ago. In fact, the only recent mention of him pertained to the rumblings from the “woke” crowd pressing to have him expunged from American history because he doesn’t meet their current standards of puritanical excellence, and at the rate they’re going, it won’t be long before they set their sights on the erasure of Martin Luther King Jr. as well.
But no one “forced” you to surrender your guns; you more or less did that voluntarily because the people far outnumber the “rulers” and widespread mass civil disobedience would have nipped that in the bud, just as mass civil disobedience could have ended your tyrannical lockdowns.
So while it’s true that mass shootings are lower over there, it comes at a heavy price: loss of personal liberty.
LikeLike
I think there’s a strong case for expunging John Wayne from history for his terrible acting – with the exception of his swansong, True Grit – and personally I found his onscreen and offscreen glorification of murderous US imperialism in which those defending their homes from gun-wielding US patriots – be they Native Americans or Vietnamese peasants – are dehumanised then exterminated in huge numbers to be rather distasteful. But I think the chances that either wokism or good taste will free us from the memory of The Duke are pretty slim. Mind you, I find it ironic that his work on The Conqueror – perhaps the ultimate showcase of both his lousy acting and the anti-wokism of the roles he played – may very well have provided the rail on which he was ultimately run off the world stage, thanks to the potentially genocidal imperialism of the US nuclear weapons program. I guess not even The Duke’s six shooter could save him from atomic bombs. Maybe he needed Harrison Ford’s refrigerator.
But to leave a dead non-actor behind and return to a bit of relevance, I think we need to start by acknowledging that society and civilisation itself depends on acceptance of some sort of limits on freedom. For example, if the limits of my right to swing my fists doesn’t stop somewhere short of your nose we’re not going to have the sort of social coherence needed to keep us alive long enough to engage in libertarian fantasies of rugged individualism.
So the question isn’t “How do we uncompromisingly defend all our self-perceived liberties – with lethal force if necessary?”, but rather “What trade-offs of our liberties are acceptable to maintain conditions in which we can survive and flourish?”.
I should probably start by pointing out that with the exception of a small number of QAnon inspired nut-jobs Australians don’t perceive Covid lockdowns as tyranny. There’s robust debate – including protest marches – as to how far they should go, how they should be enforced and what form enabling legislation should take, but Australians overwhelmingly support temporarily suspending some of our liberties in order to avoid the level of Covid mortality suffered in the US. We don’t call arguing over the details ‘tyranny’. We call it ‘democracy’. And most of us are perfectly aware we need to be vigilant and proactive to prevent temporary suspensions from becoming permanent erosion. Though we we’re initially amused by the way Fox News ignorantly portrayed our lockdowns as a ‘horrifying attack on civil liberties’ (Tucker Carlson) some of us got rather alarmed when US commentators started calling for the US military to invade Australia to liberate us (Candace Owens). We know how batshit crazy many Americans are about ‘liberating’ foreigners with bombs and worry they and/or our local US-inspired crazies may not get the joke.
It seems to me US libertarians have rendered themselves clueless about liberty by lapping up corporate consumerist propaganda as to what liberty is. They’ve enslaved their minds to advertising and industry funded lobby groups such as the NRA in order to liberate their wallets to buy whatever they’ve been programmed into believing makes them ‘free’ – including cigarettes (or ‘torches of freedom‘ as Edward Bernays called them), guns and health-destroying junk food. Instead they can only see their freedoms restricted if it’s done by government, even if those restrictions offer liberties in other areas, such as the freedom to breathe without sucking in industrial pollutants, passive cigarette smoke or potentially lethal pathogens.
So, for example, you get libertarians waxing apoplectic about their freedom to walk into a retail outlet or entertainment venue without a mask but they seem far less exercised about their lack of freedom to walk down the street bare-arsed naked, though in hot weather that’s probably just as uncomfortable and restrictive as wearing a mask.
So if you want to be free you need to start by deciding which freedoms to prioritise and what you’re willing to trade to protect them. I loved my guns, but I think handing them in to mitigate the escalation of gun violence in my community and the inevitable paramilitarised police response was a pretty good deal – especially when I look across the Pacific and see what sort of deal Americans have got in return for keeping theirs. And I’m not prepared to fight for my freedom to walk around where and when I choose without taking precautions against disease transmission if it means the sort of death rates from Covid that seem to be acceptable to Americans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps you misunderstood the point of my previous comment . I wasn’t reviewing John Wayne’s acting abilities, so much as pointing out that cultural norms have shifted. America’s current “gun culture” is largely influenced by the “drugs, thugs, hoes, clothes and money” lifestyle that’s being glorified and promoted by (mostly black) rappers. So the “gun problem” isn’t really a problem with the guns themselves: it’s mostly a problem with the moral standards and attitudes held by those who wield them in an unlawful manner.
As for supporting democracy: that’s just a disingenuous way of saying “we support mob rule” (i.e., that the majority of the population has the right to impose its will upon the minority) — a concept I deem morally bankrupt. By what method does one obtain the “right” to dictate and rule over others?
The same applies to the clarion call in support of the “public good”. Exactly who decides what items fall under that umbrella, and who exactly granted them that authority? Because I certainly don’t remember partaking in that discussion; nor would I be willing to entertain such a conversation, because I subscribe to the principle that individuals have complete autonomy over their lives and can do whatever they please so long as it does not impinge upon the liberties of others. That is to say: how you choose to live your life is no one’s business but your own, so long as you don’t attempt to impose your chosen lifestyle upon others. So if you choose to take drugs, or have unprotected sex with random strangers, or drink and eat to excess, or engage in other risky behaviors (like taking experimental “vaccines”) — that’s entirely your prerogative. Just leave me out of it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I invoked John Wayne not because I blame him personally but because I think he best embodies the Hollywood-reinforced mythic trope that runs through US society that all pragmatic, social, moral and political difficulties can be resolved by determined individualists with guns. While I think there’s much more to gansta rap culture than firepower I think that aspect also arises from the notion that in order to change society and protect yourself and your community you need to be packing heat.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, I concede that part of the explanation for such widespread irrationality is likely to be anachronistic fetishisation of the second amendment, but I seriously doubt it would exert the influence over American society that it does were it not for repeated action movie plots in which the well armed hero ultimately prevails and dispels moral complexity by virtue of blowing away the bad guys. Most John Wayne movie plots follow that well worn path and are well known so I invoke him as short-hand for the myth, though he didn’t originate it and it has taken forms he would doubtless have deplored (e.g. Wayne was an avowed white supremacist so wouldn’t likely have approved of the way gangsta rap promotes gun culture as a means of overcoming racist oppression).
It’s a problem with the notion that guns (in the hands of the right people) are a universal social panacea. You can see how ridiculous belief in that myth has become with the response of US gun nuts to the Aurora mass shooting that the problem would have been immediately solved if ‘good people’ in the movie audience had been armed. Could you imagine the sort of bloodbath that would have occurred in a panicked, darkened theatre if a dozen or so people had began returning fire? But in the movies the good guys’ bullets rarely go astray and misidentification of targets is almost unheard of, so it’s possible to make suggestions like that in the US without attracting the widespread ridicule they deserve.
Another Hollywood trope is that the ‘Dirty Harry’ style superior shooter is a law above the law, so when firearms are used unlawfully to bypass ‘corrupt’ and inefficient legal and judicial processes many Americans consider it more lawful than the law. Vigilante gunmen as ‘good guys’ is a prominent movie theme that I think goes a long way towards explaining gun cultism and the extraordinary firearm homicide rate in the US.
You don’t. But vigorous and robust democratic debate is how you go about achieving consensus as to what individual liberties can be restricted in order to protect the liberties of others.
Would you agree there should be sanctions restricting me from punching you in the face?
How about spitting in your face?
How about breathing droplets in your face that contain potentially lethal pathogens?
The way to resolve that is via public debate and while I’d agree the electoral plutocracies that currently pass for representative democratic government in much of the world are very poor vehicles for implementing public consensus I don’t agree that simply disagreeing with consensus on such things as murder, assault or contagion control licences dissenters to ignore it. I think disagreeing with government regulations licences people to protest against them but not to set fire to a museum whose staff have nothing to do with it, as anti-vax wingnuts in Canberra did earlier this week.
Australian state governments enjoy overwhelming public support for the measures that have given us a Covid mortality rate of about 8 per 100,000 compared to about 240 per 100,000 in the land of the free.
We restrict the freedom of those who are happy to endanger others by ignoring public health measures in the same way we restrict the freedom of those who are happy to endanger others by ignoring road safety measures. With the exception of a tiny number of mostly right-wing conspiracy theorists who act as an echo chamber for similar US-based groups, we don’t see it as tyranny.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Ron
I was also burglarized and the police did nothing. That is the problem though. The problem with your situations is the police do nothing. You are trying to make the problem of police doing nothing a feature. It would be better for everyone if the people robbing us were caught and punished in a way that we could all vote on. To say in this or that case the people were not caught and nothing happened so therefore we should make every case that way is not a good solution. The solution is to have the government actually be good at the limited things it should do but not try to go beyond that and start doing things they have no business doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seems to me you can hide an awful lot of theft behind ‘honest means’.
If you worked hard to raise the money to pay for land that was stolen from Native Americans did you acquire it through honest means?
If you inherited a factory and paid the workers below living wages while pocketing huge profits from the products is your income acquired through honest means?
American libertarianism sucks not because it decries state power (or because it often boosts corporate power) but because it incorporates that peculiarly sociopathic American view of individualism that refuses to acknowledge all ‘means’ are ultimately more social and communal than rooted in individual ‘merit’ and so seeks to appropriate both the means and fruits of production for whoever can make the loudest, most egotistical claim on them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think you’re quite right to point out this real world effect from anarchy (and inherent as well in fundamental libertarianism as a guiding governing principle). But I think the danger from the other extreme – too much government and the loss of individual autonomy in law to accommodate it’s establishment – is just as important to consider.
So it seems reasonable to me that there needs to be a better balance between the two incompatible book ends – the social model (that relies on group identities) and the individual model (that relies on presumed individual capability) – and I think liberalism that sets a common floor of shared rights and freedoms that can be constrained for the public good provides just that. There’s quite compelling real world evidence for that compatibilism, too.
The thorn, however, is always going to be this idea of what defines the common good, which is also going to be a constant work in progress (the enlightenment idea behind the phrase ‘a more perfect union’). Once one accepts that there will be an ebb and flow determining the real world boundaries (by real world effects) of what adds to or detracts from the public good by the least amount of individual constraints using a preponderance of evidence as the metric, then liberalism as a political philosophy shines (or in Churchill’s phrase, the worst possible government except for all the others) in that it is flexible enough to provide room for both publicly funded social improvements that aids the common good AND the greatest possible freedom for individual merit and creativity to be rewarded as a virtue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can admire your aspirations there tildeb, but I think you’re reaching for a solution with an even longer track record of failure than Marxism.
IMO, Burkean liberalism was originally formulated to allow the emerging middle classes of early industrial Britain to ethically distance themselves from the imperial abuses that fueled their newfound wealth. Instead of slaughtering and stealing from foreigners the Empire shouldered the ‘white man’s burden’ of civilising savages. Naturally such childlike, dark-skinned folk couldn’t be permitted to rule over themselves or exercise control over their own resources – they’d just squander their wealth on trinkets, hurt themselves and leave themselves open to ‘less benevolent’ imperialists to do what the British Empire did to them.
Liberalism has never really escaped from those roots. Liberals now are almost invariably of a materially privileged class who promote the same old paternalistic virtue of ‘tolerance’ of those they obviously consider to be inferior – oops, sorry, ‘disadvantaged’. Their virtue is constrained by a blinkered empathy that starts from the position that everyone else wants what they do and should emulate them in seeking to achieve it.
I’m an Australian of indigenous descent and I can tell you that far more damage has been done to First People here by arrogant liberal good intentions than by outright, self-aware racism. Elevating us to white civilisation involved destroying our culture and language and stealing our children to be raised by white institutions. Our sacred sites were destroyed and rituals banned to better assist us to find Christian virtue and salvation. Even now our still dwindling lands and autonomy are eroded (usually for the benefit of mining companies) in the name of protecting our women and children from abuse.
My understanding is that the experience of Canadian First People with liberalism has been very similar to ours.
And that’s the pattern of the relationship between liberalism and imperialism the world over ever since Edmund Burke set out its founding principles. It was liberals who spelled out the doctrine of ‘Responsibility to Protect (R2P)’ that’s been used to justify everything from the destruction of Libya to bombing Afghan wedding parties to protect the rights of girls to go to school (nothing at all to do with trying to enforce the rights of energy companies to build the TAPI pipeline).
In 1988 Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman identified the liberal media – not the rightwing tabloids – as playing the most crucial role in manufacturing consent for imperialist abuse, economic injustice and rule by the elites. I think the subsequent history of support by publications like the New York Times and the Guardian for imperialist warmongering, neoliberal economic policies and obedience to entrenched authority has utterly vindicated that analysis. But I think Phil Ochs nailed liberalism even more succinctly in 1966.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve certainly built a case and, like any good zero sum lawyer, you’ve presented it as if one layer can rest easily on the preceding one. Each point does indeed have some merit… on its own.
This is the danger of historical cherry picking. You can build a case that seems to have merit to justifying a desired conclusion. For example, you conflate Burke’s writings to be ‘liberalism’. When I studied liberalism, I had to compare and contrast Burke with Locke because neither was ‘liberalism’ individually. Yet both had some legitimate claim to shaping the political philosophy and this becomes apparent only by combining them. If one doesn’t do this, one cannot then understand why JS Mills’ short essay On Liberty IS liberalism correctly defined because that is what has gone into law. This essay is the one with which a good lawyer must contest (steel case if one wishes to confront the strongest argument rather than the cherry picked weakest) and so on this basis your case falls apart to associate Burke alone to be ‘liberalism’ (he was a very strong Monarchist very busy condemning mob rule democracy of France during the Terror and, in today’s language, would be much closer to a Reagan Republican conservative than, say, a Clinton or Obama or Carter liberal democrat). This is why I say your points do have some individual merit but collectively it doesn’t lead you to where what’s true resides. It leads you to a constructed case, a narrative, a strong bias, you favor to ‘explain and blame’ legitimate historical grievances that you mistakenly associate with liberalism rather than what’s true: the lack of liberalism. Illiberal policies. This is what a country gets when its government and legal system abandons liberal principles for the sake of convenience or gain or in selling a preferred and biased narrative. One cannot possibly justify or lay at the feet of JS Mills’ liberalism these root historical grievances. But one can clearly demonstrate these policies as lacking liberal principles and the resulting harm from them predictable.
The same is true today. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Abandoning liberalism in the name of something else is a guaranteed path to systemic injustice and collective harm. And the offspring of that unholy alliance is always retribution. It’s never a constructive path forward but a regressive slide backwards in respecting real people in real life. History offers us nothing but evidence to support this thesis.
Along this line, what people so easily either forget or refuse you recognize today is how these grievances HAVE BEEN altered BY enforcing liberal policies, namely, forcing the illiberal policies to legal review and found wanting. These policies have been stopped. That is the first step towards ultimately meaningful change. I think there’s no question that governments have been held accountable for these grievances and have put a stop to them. That’s significant because it demonstrates the power of liberalism in action: the legal recognition of forcing governments to respect the individual’s shared autonomy in law. That liberal principle, enforced by courts using the fundamental tenets of liberalism, has forced these policies to be abandoned, has forced these governments to recognize some kind of restitution to be made. Whether or not specific actions are sufficient or timely or acceptable is beside the point: liberal principles established in law caused these changes overthrew the selfish interests and imposed their end. These principles of liberalism didn’t cause the original illiberal policies but were the means to effectively stop and then begin the arduous task of addressing the legal inequalities on behalf of the public that resulted. Say what you will, but this is also an ongoing process that is unquestionably arcing away from supporting and/or backing or justifying these historically true illiberal policies in action. That’s what so many people will not admit TODAY in their zeal to maintain both blame and never-ending victimhood. What’s done is done and liberalism is the only way forward for both the aggrieved and the representatives of past government guilty of these illiberal policies.
LikeLike
Was all of the land really stolen? According to this website, the Dutch purchased present day Manhattan for 60 Guilders; so it appears that there was a legitimate land purchase contract even if the current native descendants are now experiencing sellers remorse. Nor was this the only one. There were a multitude of other land treaties, as well.
For sure, there were lands taken in conquest — but those were the rules of engagement subscribed to by all parties during that era.
LikeLike
If the concept of land ownership is in dispute, “buying” private property from the natives was like you bartering with your 4 year old. Heads I win, tails you lose. On the other side, imagine bartering with a fragmented, post apocalyptic society who are falsely acclaimed as nomads when 90% of your population had been decimated by a disease bomb and your settlements wasted?
The stereotype of the native American is just plain wrong. It’s like comparing the USA today to a scene from the book of Eli.
LikeLike
You’ve just demonstrated how rubbish the Golden Rule is.
You can only imagine land ownership in European terms. It’s extremely unlikely the Lenape had any concept of individual ownership of land or that it could be exchanged for something as abstract as money. So pretending they were engaging in a fair exchange is nonsense, even apart from the fact the Canarsee Lenape apparently ‘sold’ Minuit land occupied by their rivals the Weckquaesgeek Lenape.
And I don’t think genocide and mass dispossession was likely considered ethical behaviour by Native Americans of the day, regardless of the traditional practices of the savages who arrived from the East.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your argument appears to be that the native inhabitants made an uninformed choice (much in the same way that a child makes a poor bargain when choosing a candy over a sum of money that could buy a larger share of candy). But we don’t know that for certain and the fact remains: when you become party to an agreement, your word is your bond. The European settlers wanted the land and the native inhabitants agreed to cede it for whatever they received in exchange.
And the popular notion of the “noble savage” is pretty much just that: a notion. History records that the native tribes warred fiercely with one another and had no problems using the “pale” man’s “fire stick” to gain a tactical advantage during their raids.
LikeLike
The native tribes had been decimated from millions to a scattering of post apocalyptics struggling for survival. The noble savage isn’t just a notion if you read society of friends and William Penn’s first hand accounts, as well as Bartolo del las Casas. They surpassed the Europeans in every manner.
LikeLike
Like everything else, it all depends on where you lived and whom you encountered. The following account, although heavily biased towards European customs and beliefs, presents an entirely different set of circumstances and outcomes.
CHAPTER XI.
OF THE FORTIFICATIONS COMMENCED ON THE RIVER OF THE HIROQUOIS, AND OF THE WARS OF THOSE PEOPLES
http://moses.creighton.edu/kripke/jesuitrelations/relations_22.html
Please note, my point here is not to pick sides, so much as to point out that each side had its share of peaceful and non-peaceful constituents.
LikeLike
I understand, but this is 150 years after occupation and decimation. I don’t really think you can argue they weren’t prior to Europeans, highly intelligent and lived prosperous lives. Just look at the structures they left behind. What we encounter in these writings is a post apocalyptic, mad max version of life in native America.
This first-hand account of William Penn telling his interactions with the natives.
“But what is most striking in the Indians character, is the often repeated eulogy of the Indians natural piety. Again and again he dwells on the fact that the Indian shames the Christian in the sincerity of his religious belief and the correctness of his moral conduct”.
Describing the frugal meal that satisfies them, “pumpkin without butter or spice, the bare ground for a table, shells for spoons and leaves of the forest for plates”, he winds up exclaiming, “these wild men who never in their life heard Christs teaching of temperance and contentment, herein far surpass the Christian” Ten years later he goes on again with his praises; “They live far more contented and unconcerned for the morrow than we Christians. They do not over-reach in trade. They know nothing of our everlasting pomp and stylishness. They neither curse nor swear, are temperate in food and drink, and if any of them get drunk it is the fault of the Christians for the sake of accursed lucre”. They intentionally liquored the Indians to cheat them. Even when they absolutely knew that the Indian surpassed them in every way as human beings, they still taught them Christ as the only way of true living. It most certainly is not, but may become such through attrition—our course is set.
He said; “meanwhile, we use the wild man for day labor and gradually acquire their language and make them acquainted with the teachings of Christ”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Penn talking to the natives? Talking to some Delaware natives. I wonder if he would have thought the same of the natives if he were caught ‘trespassing’ on the holy lands claimed by warring tribes like the Apache or Sioux and treated in these tribe’s ‘normal’ fashion during the same period of time… but somehow managed to live long enough to write about it?
LikeLike
Well if that’s not good enough try Bartolo de las Casas from 1504. His first hand accountant also describes a peaceful society, hell, they were being butchered and hung and burned alive and according to Casas, they didn’t know the concept and willingly died (or butchered alive) as the men had a little fun.
LikeLike
My point is that ‘natives’ were vastly different from each other and should not be treated as if a monolith. They weren’t then and aren’t now.
LikeLike
The point is the noble savage is no myth.
LikeLike
The noble savage is a creation of the French philosopher Rosseau and used as if real enough to describe a ‘natural’ state of man that has never existed.
LikeLike
If it has “never” existed, what we have here is an unnatural state? Do you think before we evolved to think about thinking that we lived more like a deer, or a horse, without the wonder or existential death anxiety of a future event?
I do think it too, never existed in a natural state because this isn’t at all what it appears to be.
LikeLike
Basically I agree that the ‘noble savage’ is essentially a romanticised myth, usually invoked by Europeans to criticise other Europeans.
But I do think the European and Middle-Eastern traditions most associated with ‘civilisation’ were uniquely brutal in their employment of mass violence. Seems to me they rehearsed their barbarity on each other through the Middle Ages then spread the innovations in slaughter (and its moral justification) they’d developed to the rest of the world.
These days we’ve got the sole remaining superpower employing the brutality and morality it developed while carving out its nation against Native and Spanish Americans, then its regional hegemony against European empires and non-white Americans to spread imperial domination across the entire globe.
Of course the technology of mass killing is vital to the success of imperialistic endeavours, but I don’t think you can ignore its cultural and moral underpinnings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the Mongol’s brutality by all comparative measurements far predates and surpasses any supposed ‘tradition’ from European and Middle Eastern ‘civilizing’ practices you think belongs solely to ‘them’. But again, the ‘them’ is not a monolith but competing interests. You presume the ability to wage war and cause mass casualties is a ‘Western’ tradition under this false framing of Europe as if it were a colonizing and brutal monolith with the intention of exporting brutality. This is a bizarre reading of history. One need only look at the history of neighbouring valleys in, say, the Croatia/Serbian location to see that ‘exporting’ violence and brutality is far, far more local than global, which undermines the thesis of what it is was these competing Western countries were actually doing and why.
Of course, understanding history and how things have come to be today is hard because it’s highly complex versus imposing a monolithic and simple-minded reading over an historical period. Using the monolithic model is as untrue describing populations and/or countries today as it is to describe the past. That’s a clue we ignore at our peril. But I understand this model is widely taught as if historical and done intentionally without any proper accompanying shame for abusing and using the past this way to support a victim-victimhood narrative so entrenched in this modelling throughout Western academia. The model cheats generations of people from actually learning about history which is vital precursor to learn from it. What’s being ‘learned’ today is aimed only at the destruction of the only civilization that offers humanity it’s last best hope.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The original Mongol conquests under Temujin were notable for their brutal actions against city-states that refused to surrender, but the sustained efforts required to genocide ethnic groups and depopulate regions for foreign colonisation were completely foreign to the Mongols.
To galvanise sufficient people to engage in that sort of slaughter even after the military threat has been neutralised requires a very sick ideology. In the case of Europe and the Middle East it originally came from a God who said ‘thou shalt not kill’ then promptly sent his people to exterminate the Midianites down to women, children and ‘beasts of the fields’ (excepting for maidens who hadn’t ‘known’ a man, who were enslaved instead). As that god lost its importance with the Enlightenment it was replaced by other ideological gods who raised extermination and subjugation to virtues. These days US liberal chicken-hawks do the same thing when bombing campaigns are in order to seize the land and resources of other people.
The killers, rapists and pillagers of the past tended to lose momentum when their urges had been satisfied or everything worth stealing had been taken. European and Middle Eastern empires kept them killing with promises of divine rewards or punishments and assurances that their brutality was an expression of divine or communal virtue.
And yeah, the Balkans (along with WWI and WWII) demonstrate Europeans still haven’t lost their taste for slaughtering each other as well as dark skinned foreigners. But if there’s one thing that unites former Yugoslavians it’s that the NATO bombing campaign launched to pacify them was not only illegal under international law, but a war crime.
LikeLike
It has probably never occurred to you that the Dutch banking system was probably the single most important shift in power that shook the globe and instigated a global economic arms race we call ‘imperialism’. And yes, it most certainly includes the race to control assets such as resources. That, too, is part of the ‘invisible hand’ you attribute to backroom wheeling and dealing of exporting brutality and instigating genocide… but mostly against ‘brown’ people! Because underwriting debt is not nearly as emotive as claiming intentional Genocide! to tiny tribes claiming vast swaths of land and the untapped resources they contain as if ‘theirs’ by accident of birth that are then ‘stolen’ by larger and/or more powerful tribes brings me back to the point that force is the inevitable arbitrator of boundaries. Always has been and probably always will be if one wishes to be realistic and live in the real world. But there are different kinds of force. And that, too, is a very important consideration about learning from history. Real history. Real people. In real life.
What you’ve created is a multi-century narrative, a story, that you’ve populated by nationalistic characters – good and evil – that represent regions and populations that are neither so singular nor motivated by objectives you give to them as you presume is your place to do so as its author. This feel-good method diverts from real history and creates a fiction.
There is a multiplicity and complexity shaping history that you are simply ignoring – like something so mundane as novel bookkeeping! – in these grandiose two dimensional and simplistic plot lines about the evils of imperialism and colonialism. What you are ignoring are also the very human, very common, aspects that cross political and regional and racial and linguistic and religious boundaries that play just as vital a role in shaping what has unfolded – aspects we all maintain to this day local to global – as any one part of the grotesque caricature of Western history you’ve created.
And this understanding of then past matters a lot when creating and correcting plans today to achieve something better tomorrow. Your way offers no such guidance other than motivating never-ending retribution and repudiation of all things Western. What stands to gain from this approach is all things anti-Western and this means either brutal authoritarianism and/or totalitarian models. Those are the only real world options but you’re so busy trying to tear down Western civilization feeling oh so justified having believed in your own fictional narrative that you fail to realize what master you’re actually serving. And this is what happens when people in the West fail to grasp just how vital is the liberal waters in which you swim that allows you the unbelievable luxury of believing in your own narrative and supports your right to do so.
LikeLike
No tildeb, despite your reflex to paint anyone who disagrees with your authoritarianism as a conspiracy theorist I don’t think backroom wheeling and dealing has a significant systemic effect on world history.
However institutions and ideologies certainly do, and once they’re up and running they take on a life of their own independent of the personal moralities of those who participate in them. That’s why we need to be very careful about how our belief systems and institutions (e.g. Dutch banks or the East India Company) are set up and be ready to dismantle them at the first sign they’re getting out of control. In particular we need to avoid setting up systems with built in growth imperatives (e.g. empires, capitalism) as they will inevitably outgrow all attempts to regulate them.
Are you a Christian fundamentalist tildeb?
You seem very fond of the rhetoric they employ to dismiss all dissent as ‘evil’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” we need to be very careful about how our belief systems and institutions (e.g. Dutch banks or the East India Company) are set up and be ready to dismantle them at the first sign they’re getting out of control.”
Who is this ‘we’ you are talking about and from where do ‘we’ gain the power to decide such things?
LikeLike
‘We’ as human beings, as opposed to inhuman artifacts that operate in an inorganic environment in accordance with survival imperatives that may be incompatible with our own.
We’ve already noticed that about fossil fuel companies and the military industrial complex, though it remains to be seen whether we noticed too late to save our civilisation, but the fact is that any such composite entity is driven by factors outside our control and potentially inimical to our wellbeing. ”
So when I say ‘we’ I mean anyone who prioritises human welfare and survival above that of our machines.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right. So you need to have a political and legal system in place that allows for such power to reside with the individuals who constitute the polity. That’s liberalism. What you’re doing is advocating for the destruction of this liberalism and replacing it with what will be an authoritarian or totalitarian system that guts exactly that power you say constitutes the ‘we’. That’s why I say you don’t grasp the master you’re serving in condemning and vilifying all things Western.
LikeLike
You really don’t see any alternatives to authority do you tildeb?
I’d call liberalism an example of an ‘oversight body’ that has reached accommodation with the authoritarianism it was supposed to moderate, except that I don’t think it was ever meant to do that. It was designed from the start as a fig-leaf to enable liberals to distance themselves from responsibility for the authoritarianism that makes their facilitator lifestyles possible. It still does its job with admirable reliability.
I advocate participatory and direct action against abusive institutions by free assemblies of like-minded individuals trying to bring about mutual emancipation.
A good example of that is the BLM movement, which liberals ‘tolerated’ in their smiley-faced liberal way until it started calling for defunding and dismantling of police. Liberals decided that went too far as the police are one of the authoritarian institutions that protect their privilege. It’s not the children of liberals who get shot or choked to death for minor or non-existent legal infringements. The police protect liberal property values by ensuring lower class, darker skinned people don’t feel safe in affluent liberal suburbs.
LikeLike
As is almost always the case, liberalism is presented by critics who then point out illiberalism in action as cause for the criticism. BLM, for example, is a totalitarian race-based ideology supported by illiberals who think wrongly that this version of authoritarianism is itself liberal! It’s not. This caustic and divisive group-based ideology that reduces the autonomy of the individual in law by privileging a hierarchy of racial groups in law – in the name of ‘equity, diversity, and inclusion’ – currently championed by the idiots of the political Left is anti-liberal to the core. And so criticism of this anti-liberal ideology in no way legitimately offers ANY criticism of liberalism.
But by offering this criticism as if it does criticize liberalism itself demonstrates a rather shockingly profound lack of understanding what liberalism actually is and why it defense against all enemies foreign and domestic needs our vigilant protection.
Or our means of having a legitimate and powerful ‘we’ will slip out of our collective grasp and we will return to a state of power by the few legitimizing all boundaries for the many. That is the master anarchists serve, whether they know it or not. And ignorance of the law – and the liberal ideology it relies on to grant individual autonomy in law to the greatest possible extent – is no excuse for failing to accept the mantle of public responsibility we share passed to us from previous liberal generations.
LikeLike
I see on your blog that the ‘liberal’ tildeb who cites ‘evidence’ in favour of authoritarian discrimination against the unvaccinated is promoting an avowedly Trumpist academic “known for her pro-police views and her opposition to criminal justice reform” who insists Covid is no more dangerous than the flu, who has been caught out and criticised on numerous occasions for using statistics misleadingly or making them up out of whole cloth and who uses exactly the same rhetoric you do in condemning BLM. I note that you posted one of her videos that was taken down from youtube for contravening its community guidelines on promoting violence.
I find your views to be often ill-informed and abhorrent, tildeb, but I could at least offer them some respect if they really were your views. Instead, it seems to me that you simply latch onto anything that seems to support your arrogance and authoritarian instincts and parrot it without even considering what it means, what it’s promoting or understanding the terms it uses – even to the point of being a ‘liberal’ whose views on anti-racism ape the fascist right of US politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By advocating for such an oversight body with enough power to do as you suggest, you are serving at the very least some kind of authoritarianism. What is lacking in your model is any protection from such authoritarianism or ways and means for the rest of us who are not the select ‘we’ to regulate its excesses.
LikeLike
Not at all. I have no problems playing oversized power groups off against each other, such as employing state power against corporate power. But I believe in the flattest hierarchies possible and distrust any institution that wields more power than its human components. That’s why I call myself an anarchist despite not subscribing to any particular anarchist doctrine or ideology.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Addressing and correcting and controlling systemic problems cannot be done on an individual basis. You cannot fix, say, a carbon based energy system by pretending some authoritarian ‘we’ made up of anarchists has the power to enforce another energy system. But by tearing down the very institutions capable of doing this today guarantees no change, guarantees continued systemic problems, guarantees the destruction of the commons. Anarchy is the worst possible solution because it is not capable of being a solution; it is a guaranteed impediment to any ‘we’ solutions.
LikeLike
No, you tear down the institutions that are the problem – such as fossil fuel companies and the PR organisations and lobby groups they manipulate society through. And if other powerful institutions can be deployed to assist in that you do so. Then when the most pressing problem is gone you tear them down too.
What you don’t do is build ever more powerful machines to try to bring your other machines under control. That was Marx’s mistake. Bakunin told him so in the lead up to the 1872 Hague conference and was expelled from the IWA for his troubles. But history has vindicated him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have helped demonstrate why anarchy as an ideology can only destroy. It cannot create. It’s very good at justifying individual acts of destruction – the Man made me do it! – as well as mob rule as long as the shared goal is to tear down and destroy. That’s the sum total of its practical application. Guess who it appeals to?
Anarchist’s seem unable to grasp these inevitable destructive consequences of their ideology in action and then seem satisfied to blame everyone and everything else for their own destructive behaviour imposed on others, which is a clear abdication of being a responsible adult. Anarchy is nothing more than a childish and spoiled ideology that lasts only as long as it takes for the adults to decide to put a stop to the destruction and control the behaviour of those who demonstrate that they cannot control it in a positive and constructive way themselves.
LikeLike
Destruction is the purest form of creation. What could it hurt in the end anyway, of your purely mechanical universe, how could it matter so much?
Hoffer was talking about you when he said this
“In times of change learners inherit the earth; while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists.”
LikeLike
BTW, I have no truck with ‘oversight bodies’.
They will eventually either grow in power to the point where they become a bigger problem than that which they seek to oversee (e.g. law enforcement and intelligence agencies) or will enter into symbiotic relationships with the targets of their oversight and will eventually become toothless watchdogs that merely act as fig-leaves over the abuses they’re incapable of moderating (e.g. the FDA and EPA).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oversight bodies are only as effective as the legislation ‘we’ have to empower them. Very effective organizations like the EPA and FDA have been gutted by legislative changes brought about by the ‘we’ that elects political representatives who think ‘we’ is always bad and abusive and should be reduced or eliminated. Hint, hint…
LikeLike
I mention this because it was very influential and examples like Penn’s seems to back it up. But seriously, if one traits a stranger with respect, one will often be treated with respect in return. It’s a human thing and not a different state of man as Rosseau tried to paint it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not a great example considering Penn died when Rousseau was five years old.
LikeLike
You sure don’t need to tell me about the ‘noble savage’ rubbish. Here in Australia the historical culture wars are between left historians who insist Aborigines did fight against dispossession and right historians who claim they ceded their land voluntarily or died out due to ‘natural causes’ (i.e. introduced diseases and social scourges like alcoholism). It’s the right who cling to Rousseauian myths of indigenous pacifism. My ancestors were making and using weapons of war (not repurposed hunting weapons) when Europeans were still all Neanderthals.
But you won’t find much evidence of deliberate genocides or mass removals outside of Europe and the Middle East until the colonial age. That’s a ‘civilised’ innovation that seems to come with large standing armies and monotheistic gods (including secular ones like ‘nationalism’, ‘racial hygiene’, ‘democracy’ and ‘scientific socialism’) who don’t tolerate religious heterogeneity.
No we don’t know for certain. But if we’re talking 60 guilders for the island of Manhattan it seems more than reasonable to assume that those ‘selling’ it either had no valid claim to it (a tradition that continued for centuries with the Brooklyn Bridge) or had no understanding they were ceding it completely in perpetuity.
The parallel in Australia was John Batman’s ‘purchase’ of what’s now the site of Melbourne from the Kulin Wurundjeri .
If you don’t speak the language fluently and don’t grasp the concepts of land ownership and contract law being imposed then you haven’t given your word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was going to post a rebuttal, but I think I’ll let your “respected” Constitutional lawyer do it for you:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/common-good-constitutionalism/609037
P.S. – although not explicitly mentioned in this article, he is a staunch advocate of a Catholic theocracy.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/godzooks/2020/01/atheism-natural-law-catholicism-theocracy-adrian-vermeule/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. Nice work Ron. Just browsed some more of this guys work. Scary
LikeLike
His tweet about atheists is relevant how? Or are you now specializing in offence archeology?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
LOL!! There’s that table pounding again. When you can’t argue the points, attack the messenger instead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
Oh, and here’s a correction for the myocarditis study out of Canada that supposedly showed a 1 in a 1000 chance after vaccination for developing heart problems. They did the math wrong. (That’s why we are such ‘sluts’ for science… it’s the only method we have where we try to correct for errors). It’s actually something like four per million.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Regarding your reference to Malone.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
It’s a reflection of his theocratic and authoritarian mindset. From the essay you quoted:
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Case in point:
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/kenya-film-board-bans-gay-documentary-calling-it-an-affront-2021-09-24/
Reason’s cited for banning a documentary about a gay man: it’s “blasphemous” and an affront to the constitution.
(Hat tip to makagutu for his latest post “Protecting Our Values”)
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
“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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Oof. That’s a mortgage payment
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“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?
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.)
LikeLiked by 3 people
Or even create new technology to get us there faster
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s why we now use AI brains… to get it done faster.
Stand by
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh ye of little faith in science:
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/257711/20210305/scientists-announces-space-warp-drive-is-now-possible-nasa-might-apply-it-for-space-exploration.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.” 👩🚀👨🚀 🚀🪐
LikeLiked by 2 people
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 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Not sure who needs to see this, but it looks interesting (no date given, though)
LikeLike
Seems to come from this:
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
jim, you mean doubly vaccinated people that died??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes ma’am.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
here is a link to the “Rome Declaration”, an international alliance of physicians and scientists that condemn the established approach to covid. one of the members of the alliance is Dr Malone, architect of the mRNA vaccine platform.
https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/welcome-to-the-global-covid-summit
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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…
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
tildeb, you ask for data, when data is presented to you, you go straight to cynicism and ad hominem attacks.
you’re not playing fairly!
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!😁.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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…
LikeLiked by 1 person
tildeb, i agree there is a lot of crap out there but there is also a lot of good stuff.
do you mind sharing what is your background?
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
i see, you’re right in the middle of it. thanks for sharing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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??
LikeLiked by 1 person
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)
LikeLike
*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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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)?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
isn’t that what Hitler said to the people of Germany??
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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?
LikeLike
What is “it”?
LikeLike
monoclonal antibodies.
https://www.upmc.com/coronavirus/monoclonal-antibodies
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
the moment institutions (or government) are involved, there is no doubt there will be politics involved.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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*
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.’
LikeLike
That would explain all the variants of concern that have arisen from polio and smallpox and rubella and diphtheria and, and, and….
Good grief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!🎈
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
The little article might help you understand better why data sets require expert interpretation for informative meaning.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I’ve told you several times now that I’m not going to do this. For very good reasons.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Already done, Ron.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
P.S. That rash may be a side-effect of that Covid vaccination. 🙂
LikeLike
Who says I’m vaccinated?
LikeLike
That wouldn’t surprise me if you weren’t
LikeLiked by 1 person
methinks tildeb is a closet anti-vaxxer
LikeLiked by 2 people
The four biggest and most provacwords of 2021— do your own research…
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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?
LikeLike
It bears repeating that we are examining the trends revealed by the data (cases, admission, deaths) obtained from hospital records, here — not government policy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
tildeb, those words “I do not know” they apply to you too, no??
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“ 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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Your previous comment to Jim led me to believe you were:
“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.”
https://jimoeba.wordpress.com/2021/09/09/bioethics-what-is-right/comment-page-1/#comment-40530
Should I now assume that you’re a hypocrite? or the sole idiot in your family?
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Once again you’ve reverted to pounding the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person
” 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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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
LikeLiked by 2 people
*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….
LikeLiked by 3 people
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.”
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Abundance of caution.
LikeLike
Or they realized that the cure is worse than the disease it’s supposed to ward off.
Singapore announced it would start treating COVID like the seasonal flu.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/travel-restrictions-eased-health-processes-simplified-as-singapore-stays-the-course
LikeLike
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!
LikeLiked by 2 people
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As does the Stanford Prison Experiment.
For all intents and purposes, Australia has become a police state and Canada now appears to be trotting down that same path.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/saskatchewan-covid-19-1.6205235
Next stop . . . USA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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!
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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!
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLike
Funny you mention that Ron. You can also snitch online or call the police non emergency line.
https://www.khq.com/coronavirus/reporting-a-covid-19-violation-to-the-state/article_16aa6460-2860-11eb-81e1-cf9c3eddc60c.html
I’ve been at the ocean the past week. Wow! Western Washington is very militant an out the mask, vs eastern Washington.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
LikeLiked by 1 person
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…
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Facts are always the last to arrive. Ain’t that the truth?
Here’s a fact checked article describing why World Doctors Alliance quoted somewhere above in this thread as if a legitimate source for information about vaccinations for Covid-19 is not equivalent ‘data’ to global scientific consensus (which I argue must be interpreted correctly by those who know the most about the science). This is yet another example of why using the internet to find ‘data’ that supports what is obviously counter to global scientific consensus (in this case about the efficacy of vaccines and the civic duty to be vaccinated if possible) should be held and used only with the greatest of skepticism and assigned the lowest possibility of likelihood to be the case unless otherwise indicated by a significant percentage of those experts who form the consensus. Unfortunately, bullshit can be spread instantly by whim and a keyboard but fact checking the bullshit takes time and effort… usually long after the bullshit has been used to justify some reality-denying position as has been the case throughout this thread. That’s how the denialist tactic works, by selling just a smidgen of doubt to thwart unified action, whether the science be tobacco, human caused climate change, evolution, genetically modified foods, carbon footprints, alternative medicine, naturopathy therapies, and most certainly anti-vaccination idiocy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It’s not really about anti vaccination idiocy. That’s just a helper. I think there is value in the type of freedom people desire vs living by the tip of a needle year in and out. Is this the life they want to live?
The data takes a lot of effort and is frankly ambiguous in many ways. Eg, the world death toll hasn’t changed. That is telling me the whole thing is overblown. Mask, no mask, contagion carrying vaxxed and maskless masses that got a shot but still can pass it around.
The vaccine is 95%effective at keeping you out of the hospital, while your natural immune system is also 95% effective at keeping you out of the hospital.
I think many people Tildeb, would rather be left alone and die, than be bullied by executive orders of any kind. Especially here in the states where the expectation of autonomy is very high.
LikeLike
It’s ‘ambiguous’ IF AND ONLY IF you grant to the merchants of doubt the legitimacy of their interpretation of the selected data, especially when it is diametrically opposite to the global medical consensus. Right then and there, one should pause. Might it be a mistake to presume these interpretations are actually equivalent? The fact is, they are not. One side has some dissenters, it’s true; the other side has people in positions of public health with vast experience and incredible expertise who have reached agreement. (That’s not me; all I can offer is what these national figures say about how they interpret the data from their areas.) Are opposing interpretations between the dissenters and the experts really equivalent? Are you willing to bet your life and your life savings on it? Because that’s what you are doing when you presume equivalence. Even worse in regards to the issue of mandated vaccinations, you are betting your neighbour’s life and the lives of unseen chains of contacts on your presumption, too… maybe not directly or personally by contact but by undermining the political capital necessary to implement such public policies. And, believe me, those decisions – or lack of them – have very real consequences in the aggregate that are ALL negative. That’s the result of buying into doubt and empowering it to affect public policy. It may seem to be connected, but the data here in Canada is very clear and unidirectional: where populations have achieved high levels of vaccinations, much lower levels of infections and every category of consequences related to levels of infection are significantly lower. Where vaccination rates are lower, higher levels of infections and every category of consequences related to these levels are significantly higher. Remember, these are aggregate meaning overall. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there are local exceptions to the trend. And this is what the merchants of doubt will try to sell or raise the warning about attacks on personal freedoms and so on. But the trend remains crystal clear and unidirectional.
Some of those people will be part of the blood services data. Oh?
If I recall correctly, you have imported blood services data regarding year over year death rates and have extrapolated on this basis that this data set is representative of no significant change including the pandemic. On this extrapolation, you have then rationalized covid vaccinations on a global scale are basically useless.
The point here is that a little red flag SHOULD have gone up in your mind that maybe – just maybe – your extrapolation was missing something when the conclusion YOU reached contravened every infectious disease organization in the world. So my question is, why? Why didn’t reaching an opposite conclusion here raise self doubt in your mind FIRST – that maybe YOU weren’t interpreting the data correctly – and only much later feel you were in a pretty strong position to deny the global expertise and consensus?
This is the point that relates back to extrapolating equivalence with dissenters and how that plays out. What you are missing are the real world data that matters, missing the unequivocal real world evidence used by experts to inform their ‘opinions’. How these folk interpret data is not equivalent to thee or me; they use metrics that produce real world results, whereas the dissenters just spread bullshit and hope some of it sticks long enough to make it SEEM like their contrary reality-denying opinions are equivalently informed when they most certainly are not.
The way you think is being manipulated by dissenters. It is a series of tactics and methods you should recognize not because you know so much more than the experts but because you realize you (and I) know so much less! This doesn’t bother the dissenter, and there’s the red flag. The dissenters are playing on our egos to try to make it SEEM like we have the inside track, the real story, versus those pointy head table banging academic types who schill for Big Whatever and are part of some governmental or conspiratorial plot. But not us: we’re too clever to fall for that; the dissenter will praise us for our cleverness and we will invest our belief in the denialism because NOW we’re emotionally invested.
How we think determines what we think. At the very least, critical thinking should grant us the tools to figure out the difference between bullshit and reality and pay attention when the red flags are hoisted.
LikeLike
This comment reminded me of Blaise Paschal
“I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter.”
At every point in my life of the past 6 years doubt has been my biggest asset.
These worries about aggregate consequences shows your lack of belief in evolution. Nothing is happening that isn’t exactly as it should be. Maybe Mother Nature is on the right track here. It’s ok and normal for you to fight it but don’t take it too seriously.
Don’t you ever buy into doubt? If you didn’t you’d be at a pulpit (mass consensus of the experts) and that would be ok too.
When do you decide which mass consensus to follow? This is faulty reasoning and faith in science.
Although fear is still a best seller, it is also as normal an emotion of survival that got us where we are today. It’s perfectly human
LikeLiked by 1 person
Put it this way, Jim: I base my opinions and beliefs on likelihood. There is always room for doubt if that doubt is warranted. But it’s a gargantuous task to elevate doubt to any significance in the face of scientific consensus, knowing that every scientific idea is subject to scrutiny and so consensus has already gone through far in excess of anything I can being to it because my expertise is so much less. When I disagree with some scientific idea that has gone through peer review, or disagree with some big brained person who has admiration from others in the same field, then the very first assumption I make is that I have misunderstood, that I have missed something, that I have made a thinking error. This is my default setting. Not for a second do I assume or presume greater expertise, but I am in a position to try to better understand WHY this is more likely than that, that this is more probable than that, and so I gain that from these experts. It’s a win-win approach.
Dissenters come at issues exactly the opposite direction, that experts have to ‘prove’ their cases and have failed against the supposed high standards the dissenter imports. And – lo and behold – nothing can approach the demanded standards unless – lo and behold again -it just so happens to align with the dissenter’s imported opinions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The comment reminded me of W.C. Fields — ‘If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.’
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course tildeb has never been about critical examination of the evidence. It’s always about waiting for political authorities – such as Canadian government departments – to tell him what to think about it.
Well, he’s convinced me. Here’s the experts telling us how to interpret the evidence and the official response to it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, I’m not an infectious disease expert. Those are the folk who interpret the data when it comes to this pandemic and make recommendations for public health policy through CIHI. That’s what I’ve passed along and not the political decisions.
Australia has not implemented the infectious disease advice with actions outlined in the video but modified it significantly with political advice. This is the costly result and it’s a common result for jurisdictions that have done the same.
So your attempt to link me to ‘government departments’ as if what I was talking about in this thread was the same in Canada, and that these ‘government departments’ were the same, and that the measures taken were the same, is not true. You then claiming otherwise and then insisting that this is the source of my information and ‘them’ telling me what to think is actually sad rather than moronic. But it is indicative of just how much you respect what’s actually true… as in, you’re just making shit up here and flinging it in my direction.
The only information I’ve passed along here is up to date at the time of posting and how these experts interpret them at that time. I have not passed or gone along with any political agendas; just the expert advice. That you don’t like or respect this information is all about you and not me. That you’re willing to pretend this video somehow criticizes what I’ve offered in my commentary is just a smear job. As an atheist, I’m used to this kind of deceitful smearing behaviour from the True Believers who presume maligning my character with lies somehow works to criticize or undermine the information I have raised. They don’t. But you’ve used the same tactic and this is just as revealing about your own character as it is theirs. And it’s not good.
LikeLike
Truth is you haven’t passed any information — at all. It’s just been a series of long-winded rants supporting the Big Pharma narrative.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s what the “experts” recommended we should do during an atomic bomb attack.
LikeLike
Seven anti-vaccine doctors fell sick with Covid-19 after gathering earlier this month for a “summit” at which alternative treatments were discussed. –The Guardian
LikeLiked by 2 people
This just in:
America’s “Top Infectious Disease Expert” finally admits that hospitalization records over-report the number of patients hospitalized “with COVID” as opposed to “because of COVID”.
https://rumble.com/embed/vp2b91/%3Fpub%3D4
No shit, Sherlock! The organization you head wrote those reporting guidelines back in early 2020.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shhh. This is too upsetting to believers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The head of the CDC is clarifying on national TV that the sudden rise in the number of cases involving children in hospital isn’t about Covid driving them there but that the ‘sudden rise’ for statistical purposes includes hospitalized kids with Covid. And you think RON pointing this out is ‘letting the cat out of the bag’ and will bother ‘believers’?
I mean, come on. That almost half of all case counts are coming from the under 29 cohort and hospitalized cases OF COVID COMPLICATIONS are over represented by unvaccinated in this age cohort (by about a factor of 7) is not in any way altered by Faucci’s explanation. But it’s being presented here as if it does. It doesn’t.
More disturbing, however, is the notion that to recognize these facts is somehow part of a faith-based belief is a very clear example of promoting disinformation, Jim. There is absolutely no question that vaccination reduces and mitigates Covid infections. There is absolutely no question that an unvaxed person getting Omicron is at significantly higher risk of these complications. Calling people who respect reality and understand such facts as if they are ‘believers’ is a disservice to anyone who respects what’s true and is an inversion of it, while it inserts an element of intentional dishonesty to paint such people this way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A- This in no way has or had the severity implied to shut down the economy and force vaccination. The average death toll per capita has remained steady to prior covid levels.
B- Yes it is equivalent to faith based belief. Disease experts hold a myopic view Impacted by bias. If you look around it’s not near the hype it was predicted. Maintaining that it is is hope, faith, and sunk cost fallacy.
Part of the problem with the improvements in bio tech is we can see infinitely small variations of more and more potential problems, yet those in the industry just can’t see their overblown predictions of death and destruction just isn’t worth the hype. All they see is mutations and CYA political scare tactics.
LikeLike
Hold up… the link was about clarifying a sudden STATISTICAL rise in kids in hospitals with Covid. You took this to mean such a clarification would cause harm to the BELIEFS of people who would both prefer yet be worried about this statistic to mean kids were getting hospitalized for Covid. That is patently intended to paint such people not as people who respect reality but those who don’t. THAT is disinformation. AND it’s intentional.
As for you A and B points, they are irrelevant here.
But concerning these you seem unaware that even a tiny percentage of a very large number is still a very large number, meaning even when Omicron is less severe than Delta (it doesn’t attack lung tissue like Delta), the availability of getting health care is still negatively impacted when numbers soar quickly. This IS a real world cause for real world concern. Throw in staff shortages and the problem becomes acute. Now add in the loss of many ‘regular’ hospital-linked activities and you have a shit show where someone dying from untreated cancer doesn’t show up statistically as a death or reduction of life span and quality because of ‘Covid’. You treat none of this with any show of understanding or concern about how to mitigate this real world situation – and the FACT is that the greatest mitigation is vaccination followed by the FACT of isolation followed by the FACT of distancing followed by the FACT of masking – but remain ever-so-eager to go out of your way to malign those who do and smear them with term ‘believer’ as if they were wingnut religious believers. Of course, getting Omicron and then having the immune system kill it certainly mitigates getting Omicron again but it doesn’t work in reverse, Jim; people who had Delta are just as likely as the fully vaxed (3 doses) to get Omicron and there is evidence they tend to do slightly worse overall than the vaxed do dealing with the infection. But hey, if you think all of this is just a matter of belief and apparently you do, then then the reality denying ‘belief’ being exercised here is ENTIRELY on your end.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There’s no comparable data that could constitute such ‘evidence’.
Almost all of those who’ve had delta contracted it months ago – most more than 6 months ago. Very few people who have been triple vaxxed received their last dose more than two months ago.
As with all coronaviruses, immunity to Covid wanes steeply from the fourth month onwards, whether induced by vaccine or by infection. So comparing the recently triple vaxxed with those infected with delta months ago is comparing apples with oranges.
The evidence isn’t in and won’t be for five or more months.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not true. We do have evidence. This is in response to the idea of super immunity from hybrid conditions (pre infection plus some vaccination up to 2 doses). The evidence from an Israeli report indicates slightly higher rate of complex symptoms for such hybrid individuals (delta plus 2 doses) from Omicron than for those who have a breakthrough case after 3 doses of only vaccination (different rates depending on the types of vaccinations used). This extraction is based on modelling not because it’s definitive on its own but because it contrasts so strongly with this notion of super immunity to Omicron from prior infections plus vaccination. That’s important to know because many people presume prior infection yields higher immunity and less severe symptoms. But like with most things involving an ongoing pandemic, such notions are only partly true.
What should be made clear is that a vaccination against the corona virus family itself rather than particular variants is preferable. We may have just that before the end of 2022 (the study has already entered its second stage), which is really good news… well, except for antivaxers who are completely deluded.
LikeLike
Like the Pfizer sponsored South African study I mentioned in an earlier comment, the Israeli study you cite is invalid.
The main differences between omicron and delta are on the spike protein. mRNA vaccines only produce an immune response to the spike protein. Prior infection produces an immune response to all foreign proteins in the virus capsid, so you’d expect it to be more effective against a variant with mutations primarily in the spikes.
So prior infection is not a valid proxy for another dose of mRNA vaccine. By dishonestly pretending it is some researchers are simply reinforcing conspiracy theories that medical science is not to be trusted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Apologies tildeb. I misread your previous comment and assumed wrongly that you were citing an Israeli study I read earlier in the week. If you can post a ref to the one you cite I’ll check it out, but unless the 2 vax + delta is just as recent as the 3 vax group any difference in complex symptoms is likely explicable by the steep drop off in immunity characteristic of coronaviruses regardless of how its obtained.
Last July Israel was the first country to start rolling out boosters in response to loss of efficacy against delta and is now rolling out another booster in response to omicron, which currently accounts for over 90% of cases there. It’s just about possible they’ve already got enough post-June double vaxed delta cases who’ve since contracted omicron to make a valid comparison with triple vaxed omicron cases but I’d sure want to check the data before assuming that.
LikeLike
Not sure where you’re getting that from jim.
According to the CDC the US death rate went from 723.6 per 100,000 in 2019 to 838.6 per 100,000 in 2o20, with Covid the 3rd leading cause of death in 2020. 2021 figures aren’t out yet but I’d be happy to cover any bets that they won’t be even worse.
LikeLike
http://knoema.com/atlas/World/Death-rate
LikeLike
Seems to me the table you link to is showing a reversal in declining death rates in 2019/2o2o, though given that it’s for all deaths in the whole world I think it’s too crude to draw conclusions one way or the other about Covid. Countries with high death rates due to other causes will drown out the impact of Covid.
Nor do I think overall declines in death rates from 1971 to 2020 tells us anything. If the first year of Covid had wiped out the gains in mortality rates since 1971 it would constitute a medical catastrophe unprecedented since the 1919 flu pandemic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, there’s absolutely no question to people of faith such as yourself who allow no questions, but medical researchers who prefer evidence to authoritarian dogma still have many such questions.
But an even bigger question is whether vaccines specifically targeting omicron should be rolled out. We’re already seeing omicron replacing the more lethal delta as the dominant strain, probably due at least in part to delta-specific vaccines giving it a selection advantage. It’s also more than likely that omicron emerged in an individual who already had resistance to earlier variants, whether through prior infection or vaccination, otherwise it wouldn’t have become the predominant strain in his/her body.
Leaky vaccines such as all the available Covid ones have long been recognised as promoting the emergence of new pathogen variants. Right now we’re seeing what’s probably the most benign Covid variant to date displacing other strains in their human ecosystems. If we suppress omicron with leaky vaccines whatever comes to replace it may be considerably nastier.
So the mindless “Vax! Vax! Vax!” chants of people like tildeb will become potentially even more dangerous than the equally mindless conspiracy theories of anti-vaxxers as omicron specific vaccines are developed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t have the date for the numbers you quote, but I will bet you’re missing the point (you usually do): the raw numbers of hospitalizations will show higher numbers of vaccinated (‘breakthrough’ cases) than unvaccinated because (roughly) over 80% of the entire population is vaccinated. So it is the rate as a ratio that is what matters and is (typically) offered as numbers per hundred thousand (hint: ratio). That is the comparative number that matters because, say, 1 person per hundred thousand who is vaccinated is a far lower rate than, say, 10 per hundred thousand who are not vaccinated (different ratio, you see, and its this ratio comparison that is what matters when it comes to the efficacy of vaccination… not that you give a shit). So if we multiply this out for the entire population to compare and contrast the efficacy of vaccination, the FACT is that we will find far larger numbers of vaccinated people getting Omicron than the number of unvaccinated who get it. But as Inigo Montoya says, I do not think it means what you think it means. In fact, I know it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
That misunderstanding is what you’ve offered up, which demonstrates you have no real understanding to offer. But, as usual, you take your own misunderstanding and use it as an opportunity to malign me. That’s why you’re a piece of work and why responding to you specifically after you use this same tactic repeatedly is nothing more than a waste of time. I take the time here and now as an exception to demonstrate why you’re a fool: you can’t even figure out something as simple as putting this basic and expected numerical difference into its correct interpretation but presume by fiat that you’re the smartest one in the room because you think you’ve found something that justifies maligning me. Just know that every time you do, you’re just fooling yourself. That’s why you’re a fool: you don’t even know how you keep on fooling yourself. That’s not an admirable characteristic but certainly it is one of your own making and only you can undo it. I doubt you have the courage.
LikeLike
I think the point of the BMJ article is that medical researchers say “it’s still too early to estimate vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions” but to you “there is absolutely no question that an unvaxed person getting Omicron is at significantly higher risk of these complications”. Apparently your evidence is way out in front of that of medical researchers.
I think it’s also significant that as of 20 December 13% of those admitted to UK hospitals with omicron have been triple vaxxed (i.e. the criteria you use in the claim I was responding to). I don’t know what % of the UK population had been triple vaxxed by then, but I’d be very surprised if it’s over 13%.
I would hope the particularly vulnerable are being prioritised, so that’s going to skew the hospital admission rates upwards, but in any case, given the data available so far it’s completely unjustifiable to claim “there is absolutely no question that an unvaxed person getting Omicron is at significantly higher risk of these complications”, which is why medical researchers are making no such claims.
Pfizer did make a claim similar to yours based on one of its own South African studies that invalidly used prior infection with delta as a proxy for the third vaccination, reinforcing the view of vaccine skeptics that you can’t trust the science because its controlled by powerful vested interest. I don’t hold to that view because I critically evaluate such claims and discard the junk science, no matter who is doing it.
LikeLike
For some. But I think the jig is up for most people., because an ever-increasing number of “true” believers are now slowly starting to question the “scientific” orthodoxy because it doesn’t quite mesh with reality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alas, I see the “defenders of the faith” have now entered the chatroom to proselytize their steadfast and unwavering beliefs from the Gospel of Vax. Repent, all ye un-jabbed sinners. Repent and be baptized in the name of The Pharma, The Fauci and The Holy Consensus. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
If by “defenders of the faith” you mean people informed by real world data, then here’s a bit more for you regarding vaccinations for the 12-17 years old cohort: 72.1% kids in hospitals for Covid treatment unvaxed, 0.4% for double vaxed. For the mathematically challenged who scoff at “defenders of the faith” that 180 fold reduction due entirely to vaccination. I guess that’s “faith” in action.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really like this graphic. I’m guessing Ron and his conspiracy mates hate it
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I laughed out loud when I saw what you had posted… not that others will necessarily understand what it means. But it does help show why Republicans are 5 times more likely to die from Covid than Democrats.
LikeLike
Why am I unsurprised that you laugh out loud at evidence of human death and suffering?
LikeLike
Because you misinterpret where the humor is, you fool.
LikeLike
Name calling is a faith based feature.
LikeLike
The term ‘fool’ relates to a previous explanation and is not intended to stand on its own. It comes directly from cabrogal fooling cabrogal reliably and consistently. Of course, cabrogal is welcome to malign me without any equivalent warnings from you so I assume you hold me in a special place in your heart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s irrelevant without knowing what % of 12-17 year olds received vaccinations prior to the date of the hospitalisation stats you’re quoting.
If you’re gonna quote statistics to support your assertions tildeb it might be an idea to gain a basic understanding of how they work.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When you figure out what you’re trying to say, get back to me. Rather get back to the infectious disease experts who originally posted exactly this stat. But of course, cabrogal is far smarter and more knowledgeable about these rates than Meaghan Kall or Eric Topol. That explains all your equivalent medical publications and professional references.
You are such a fool because you allow your dislike of me to warp what’s true. You need to work on that.
LikeLike
Hmm, so when I say you need to compare hospital rates with vaccination rates to get a valid measure I’m a fool.
But when you do so in one comment after ignoring it in another you’re not?
LikeLiked by 1 person
And look at how foolish I am responding to you! My bad.
LikeLike
No. By “defenders of the faith” I mean the people who mindlessly chant the “Vaccine Über Alles” propaganda being disseminated by the MSM.
People informed by real world data have concluded that adopting a healthier lifestyle yields far greater immunological protection against disease than becoming a lifelong pincushion for Big Pharma, 🙂
LikeLike
Do you honestly believe I am advocating for obesity or pretending it’s not a major risk factor? Come on, Ron.
Of course a healthier lifestyle and diet offers maximum immunological response and this is to be sought by any reasonable person. Of any age. But vaccinations are not contrary to this; they are equivalent to installing an air bag that, in the event of a collision with SARS-CoV-2, can help reduce its severity for everyone everywhere all the time. Those are the epidemiological facts. The variants in the analogy introduce different kinds of collisions, and we are very fortunate and even lucky if the air bag still helps in all cases. But no one is claiming this is the case with vaccinations and all the viral variants.
So a young and healthy as well as an old and vulnerable person can still benefit from the protection the vaccination (air bag) offers and this is equivalent (so far) with the role vaccination plays in people of any age in any condition who come into contact – or collision – with this viral antigen. So doing ALL that one can makes good protective sense.
The side effects from vaccination is a lower risk than any of us driving one kilometer. That, too, is statistically the case. If you’re willing to take on the risk of the latter, then you have no excuse avoiding the risk from the former if you’re going into the public domain. There is also an equivalent social obligation to drive responsibly – to behave in a protective manner – as there is to vaccinate responsibly – to also behave in a protective manner. It’s also the same fundamental reasoning to vaccinate children against common diseases and ask caregivers to take reasonable precautions on behalf of the health of the their children if the various diseases do arise.
What doesn’t make any sense is to vilify air bags or, in the case here, vilify vaccination as if the relationship to healthy lifestyles/diet OR vaccination is the case (no epidemiologist is claiming this), that reasonable protective behaviour and social rules/laws in either case are part of a nefarious plot – using liberty-killing speed limits or tyrannical indoor masking – to take away rights and freedoms. This isn’t the case. At all. In any way. Anywhere. Pretending good lifestyle and healthy diet exempts one from driving with an airbag on board makes as much sense as exempting one from vaccinating.
And you wonder why I accuse you of spreading misinformation? Because you DO!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
For the sake of completion, let’s do a quick comparison:
– Airbags (and seatbelts) are offered as additional protection to reduce severe injury resulting from a motor vehicle collision because defensive driving alone cannot mitigate against the unforeseen actions of other road users or sudden mechanical failure. Nonetheless, reliance on airbags alone is never prescribed as a safe alternative to defensive driving or keeping one’s vehicle in safe running condition.
Vaccines, on the other hand, are offered as protection against severe illness due to biological pathogens. However, it’s also possible to bolster one’s natural immunity against same pathogens via healthy living. Thus, reliance on vaccines alone should never be prescribed as a safe alternative to healthy living while that latter option is still on the table. (Which is precisely the opposite of what has been done. Opportunities to improve one’s health have been actively stifled while opportunities to undermine it have been actively encouraged. For example, gyms and playgrounds were unceremoniously shuttered while liquor stores and fast-food restaurants remained open under the pretext that the first two were deemed “non-essential” activities while the latter two were deemed “essential” services. Message sent: physical and outdoor pursuits are dangerous activities to be avoided at all costs, but consuming alcohol and junk food while confined indoors is totally acceptable.)
– Airbags only offer protection to those within the vehicle, but not to those who are struck outside the vehicle. Likewise, the vaccines can, at most, only offer protection to those who are vaccinated, but not to those who are not. (So let’s put to rest the old “if not to protect thine self, then at least do it to protect thine others” canard.)
– Undeployed airbags are now guaranteed to last the lifetime of the vehicle, whereas the COVID “vaccine” is now only guaranteed to last until the next variant arrives — maybe.
– And finally, airbags only cause minor injuries, whereas vaccines have the potential to induce severe adverse reactions.
But in any case, my objection isn’t to the voluntary taking of Covid “vaccines”, per se, so much as it is to the unscientific political directives proclaiming someone’s vaccination status be regarded as the sole determining factor in deciding whether or not they be permitted to participate in public life.
Which brings us right back to the topic of this post: is it ethical to mandate vaccination of citizens with an unnatural selection processes that, based on fear, have bypassed established checks and balances?
To which I answer(ed) with a resounding “no” — it is neither ethical, nor moral to violate someone’s bodily autonomy or force them into doing things without their express consent. Moreover, it’s utterly shameful that so few are willing to stand up to defend this most basic of human rights.
LikeLike
“Nonetheless, reliance on airbags alone is never prescribed as a safe alternative to defensive driving or keeping one’s vehicle in safe running condition.
Vaccines, on the other hand, are offered as protection against severe illness due to biological pathogens. However, it’s also possible to bolster one’s natural immunity against same pathogens via healthy living.”
It’s not either/or as you keep presenting. That’s why this is misinformation! Find me a single epidemiologist who says it’s NOT “possible to bolster one’s natural immunity against pathogens via healthy living.” You keep presenting the issue of vaccine efficacy as if it is CONTRARY to this possibility. Misinformation again.
“Thus, reliance on vaccines alone should never be prescribed as a safe alternative to healthy living while that latter option is still on the table.” Nobody is saying this. Nobody. Misinformation.
What you do is paint lockdowns of communal gatherings with certain exemptions as if they are INTENDED to send the message that physical and outdoor pursuits are dangerous activities to be avoided at all costs, but consuming alcohol and junk food while confined indoors is totally acceptable. That’s not true. Misinformation. Sure, you can find examples of each, but this does not show intention. You can far more easily find counter examples where outdoor activities have much looser restrictions and greater numbers allowed than anything indoors. You are simply cherry picking information that suits your motive rather than present what is true in a fair and balanced way. That’s why it’s misinformation.
“Airbags only offer protection to those within the vehicle, but not to those who are struck outside the vehicle. Likewise, the vaccines can, at most, only offer protection to those who are vaccinated, but not to those who are not.”
You’re right in the first part of my analogy about airbags, which I used to show that ANYONE benefits no matter how healthy or young. Naturally, you fail to grasp this point. But you are exactly wrong in the second; vaccines DO offer a level of protection to others in a variety of ways I won’t go into. Suffice to say, the reason why you are not exposed to measles and smallpox is because vaccines have a long track record of working to protect others… even anti-vaxers. So it’s neither a canard nor anything you’ve put to bed with your misinformation.
The level of harm from vaccines is extremely rare; the level of harm from Covid is literally hundreds of thousands of times greater. To pretend otherwise is DISinformation. Mandating vaccines is a normal public health policy used every day and it has worked to extraordinary positive effect for the unquestionable benefit of the public in any fair comparison to not doing so.
Your legal autonomy is not affected by mandated vaccines when you consider what being a citizen is. There is an exchange between your unfettered freedom and being a member of civil society. If you want to reject this reciprocal arrangement then go away. You shouldn’t be a citizen.
LikeLike
Your attempts to gaslight and BS your way through this conversation won’t work.
Welcome to the “True North, Strong and Free”, where skating and playing outdoer hockey now constitutes a criminal offense.
And contrary to your claims, there is no “reciprocal arrangement” in play. Otherwise, produce the signed document attesting to such or go away.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, such activities during a lockdown or any social restrictions can be criminal. And the reciprocity is tacit. That’s why you are subject to all kinds of rules and regulations and taxes, and yes, even social restrictions when called for during a pandemic. Go figure. But Ron should be exempt because he knows better than everyone else and his unfettered freedom defines civil liberty. Come on.
LikeLike
Yes, history is replete with things that can and have be deemed criminal or illegal — ridiculing the king; aiding runaway slaves; Sunday shopping; Sunday football; gambling; permitting blacks the right to vote; permitting women the right to vote; possession of weed and other “controlled” substances; procuring an abortion; the consumption of alcohol; harboring Jews; soliciting for the purpose of prostitution; inter-racial marriage; playing pinball; uttering profanities in public; sodomy; gay marriage; going topless on a beach; spitting on the sidewalk; public nudity; using the wrong pronoun; etc. — the list is almost endless. Doesn’t necessarily make it morally right or ethical though, does it?
Nor is there any agreement — tacit or otherwise — to obediently accept and capitulate to these unwarranted intrusions upon our individual liberties.
Nor does a pandemic, or any other “state of emergency” grant anyone the moral authority to set aside those individual liberties for the sake of “public safety” or some other nebulously-defined “common good”.
And please note that I wrote “individual” liberties rather than “civil” liberties for a reason: the word “civil” begs the question (i.e., that it implies that I’m a subject of some ruler or other governing authority) and I do no recognize anyone’s authority to govern over me — ever.
Naturally, those who choose to comply with all the rules and regulations are free to do so; just don’t expect others to follow suit, or cry foul when they don’t.
And please tell me: exactly what’s the difference between a small group of kids chasing a puck on outdoor ice and a bunch of grown men chasing a puck on indoor ice s in front of large crowds for money? Does COVID take a break when the event takes place during an NHL game? Because the recent outbreak among the “fully-vaxxed” players of multiple teams seems to indicate otherwise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I always found it amusing g that public transportation, school buses too, are exempt from seatbelts and airbags because it isn’t practical. Certainly a hypocritical connection to covid where all the sudden public safety matters.
LikeLike
Yes this has been an issue. And it’s good to raise it. But the response is also on point: an average of 11 fatalities per year in the US come from school bus AND school purpose vehicles. There are about 450,000 fatalities per year in all traffic accidents, almost all with both air bags and seatbelts available and deployed. So if the purpose is to increase safety, then both seat belts and air bags on school buses (school purpose vehicles have at least seatbelts) doesn’t justify the refit because most of these fatalities occurred in severe accidents (struck by trains, sinking in water, and fire).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think your airbags comparison is a poor one Ron. They only protect those in the vehicle fitted with them. At least in the case of pre-omicron variants, vaccines also reduce transmission, so they protect others as well as the vaccinated individuals and their households.
A better comparison would be alcohol legislation. Drink driving mostly endangers you and those in your vehicle, but it also endangers others on or near the roads. There’s no laws against getting blind, stupid drunk in the privacy of your own home but there are laws against driving while drunk and being drunk in public places in order to protect others.
I’m not entirely familiar with US vaccine mandates, but here in Australia you can’t be forced to take a vaccine. But you can be restricted from allowing your choice to endanger others by exposing them to the risk you’ve chosen to accept for yourself. It’s similar to the freedom to endanger yourself, but not others, with excessive alcohol consumption. And there’s very few medical professionals scapegoating drinkers for the lack of adequate public health capacity and suggesting they should be put at the end of treatment queues.
I agree there’s way too much emphasis on ‘personal responsibility’ to get vaccinated and scapegoating of those that don’t. Some of that is driven by drug companies – especially Pfizer – trying to distract attention away from the shortcomings of their product and maximise the record profits Covid has delivered to them. But I think most of it is due to governments trying to distract attention away from their own public health failings – especially in the pre-planning and resourcing needed for health systems to cope with the inevitable increased rates of epidemic disease they’ve been warned about for decades – and corporations trying to distract from their responsibility to provide safe working conditions.
I think the big lesson of the pandemic is one that US libertarians will find very hard to learn and which governments and corporations don’t want them to learn. That is public health and safety isn’t primarily a matter of individual responsibility. It’s gotta be a communal effort in which resources are pooled, the most vulnerable are protected regardless of their financial status and everyone accepts some of their individual freedoms must be waived to protect the freedom of everyone to enjoy good health.
Sadly, the way our society works means the most pressure on individual freedoms will come from powerful vested interests with little stake in either freedom or safety. If there’s any hope of pushing back against them it’s not going to come from ‘freedom loving individuals’ – no matter how well-armed they may be. Nor is it going to come from rather dim individuals who think parroting the talking points of authorities gives them individual authority. It’s only gonna come from large numbers of people self-organising and self-educating into groups to demand the measures needed to cope with such crises. But even within such groups, there’s a responsibility on each person to think for themselves to the best of their ability and not just parrot the positions of authorities or conspiracists.
LikeLike
Cabrogal, you write,
“I think the big lesson of the pandemic is one that US libertarians will find very hard to learn and which governments and corporations don’t want them to learn. That is public health and safety isn’t primarily a matter of individual responsibility. It’s gotta be a communal effort in which resources are pooled, the most vulnerable are protected regardless of their financial status and everyone accepts some of their individual freedoms must be waived to protect the freedom of everyone to enjoy good health.”
I think this is exactly right, as is much needed criticism of every aspect of its role, choices, and delivery. And THIS is where expert critical opinion can (and should be encouraged to) make a huge and valuable contribution.
LikeLike
Out of the NHS :
Funny… you have to squint to see the boostered folk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shame you didn’t squint to see the heading of the graph or you would have seen it’s accumulated results from May to December last year. There were no boostered folk until the very end of the reporting period, so it would have been pretty amazing had they made up a significant proportion of admissions.
LikeLike
Yes, the booster in the United Kingdom was approved for December so we would expect the number of hospital admissions to be relatively low when the Omicron wave started up in November. But by the end of December, the wave was already at tidal proportion so we should have seen a dramatic rise. That rise is missing for the boostered. The rise in hospital admissions from various populations that reference vaccination status, however, is NOT missing. What is very clear is that those not vaccinated are not missing from this rise, and the rise is also reduced from the partially vaccinated.
Go figure.
That’s why the chart is informative, because it reflects reality rather than misinformation.
LikeLike
Tildeb, the graph you link to accumulates all the UK admissions from May to December by age. It doesn’t show anything by time so of course there’s no ‘dramatic rise’ for ‘the end of December’.
It’s lumped a huge number of admissions together, only a tiny proportion of which could be either boosted or omicron cases, because neither category existed in substantial numbers until near the end of the reporting period. Which is why only a tiny number of the cases are boosted. It says nothing about the efficacy of boosters against omicron.
LikeLike
Maybe this will help:
LikeLike
Well, it’s good news in that it suggests the UK omicron wave has passed its peak in less than a month, just as it did in South Africa. But it’s a graph of case numbers, not hospital admissions, and gives no breakdown by booster status so still fails to support your earlier assertion in any way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, cabrogal. My mistake. I thought you could read graphs… not just for what’s there but what should be there if vaccination wasn’t doing as advertised.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve gotta admit tildeb, I lack your talent for seeing data to support your views where none exists.
But perhaps you can help me out here.
Could you please compare the graph of South African cases here, covering a period of essentially no boosters, with the UK graph you provided and explain what the invisible data about the UK booster program is telling those of us who imagine we can see it?
LikeLike
Sure, I’ll help. But that help usually instigates some acidic comments from you about my deplorable character as your way of saying thanks. A rather inhospitable trait I have to say.
Nevertheless, the key is to see that Omicron is just as hard on the unvaxed with both hospital and ICU admissions BUT shows DECLINING rates in spite of a tidal wave infection rate for the thrice vaxed. What’s missing is an expected RISING rate for the vaxed (because of waning immunity over time) even if much lower than the unvaxed. The difference is the vaccination effect from the 3rd shot, the ‘booster’. Even if vaccination doesn’t stop infection from this variant that is 70 times more infectious, it DOES with the 3rd dose which demonstrably reduces both its rate of infection AND its severity to a remarkable degree considering its manufactured spike protein has so many differences from that of Omicron. You will also be sad to hear that Pfizer will produce between 3 and 4 billion Omicron targeted vaccine shots to be distributed by the end of March without the guarantees provided by waiting customer nations for the original. More poison for the masses I guess.
LikeLike
So why is the ‘difference’ the same for both the UK and SA waves despite the fact the latter country had distributed very few boosters?
Wouldn’t it be far more reasonable to conclude what has broken both waves isn’t Covid vaccine mediated immunity at all, but rather herd immunity caused by the sheer number of omicron infections which, unlike current vaccines, provides excellent, albeit probably short-lived, protection from omicron?
Yes, I am sad to hear that, though unsurprised given the huge vaccine profits Pfizer can deploy to PR and lobbying, sheer mass of pro-vaccine propaganda in the media and the number of gullible people unable to interpret data or apply critical thinking so simply polarise into opposing camps and vehemently spout their preferred brand of bullshit.
I predict widespread omicron-specific revaccination will promote the emergence of variants more virulent than omicron and result in increasing immune system fatigue that will make the most vulnerable members of society – the elderly and immune compromised – more susceptible to both post-omicron variants and non-covid infections. I also predict it will make a shitload of money for Pfizer, much of which will be reinvested in misleading PR and lobbying aimed at maintaining consensus in favour of its new, hyper-profitable status quo.
You wanna make your own predictions tildeb?
We can compare them for accuracy a year from now.
LikeLike
I’m not sure what your game is tildeb.
Do you know you’re making stuff up and are counting on no-one bothering to check the data and your cockamamie interpretations of it?
The fact you rarely post a ref for your claims and when you do it pretty much never checks out seems to suggest that.
Or are you too unintelligent to realise your claims are utterly unsupported by the data you cite for them?
In Eichmann in Jerusalem Hanna Arendt noted that Adolf Eichmann – one of the primary architects of the Holocaust – didn’t seem to hold any personal animosity towards Jews. His problem was that he was rather stupid and deeply embarrassed about it, so he simply followed the dictates of authority in the hopes of camouflaging his own stupidity amid the statements of those promoted as being more competent than him. Hence Arendt’s subtitle for the book ‘the banality of evil’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Back to your usual I see. Rather than try to understand the points I raise and why these points matter, you seek only to dismiss them by dismissing me. Why am I not surprised, therefore, you would go the absolute extreme in this motivation and equate me with Eichmann? That’s why you’re a piece of work.
LikeLike
No tildeb, I compare you with a huge number of unintelligent authoritarians who argue from authority without understanding what they’re saying. I raised Arendt because her study of Eichmann is the only one I know of that credibly unpacks the psychology and motives of people like that.
You’ve gotta admit, trying to establish your authority by repeatedly establishing you don’t know what you’re talking about is a mystery that takes some explaining.
LikeLike
Funny . . . a report from 7 January 2021 reporting stats from the future (May to Dec 2021). With that kind of attention to detail, one wonders how well they did compiling the rest of the data. 🙂
Nonetheless, you won’t have to squint for too much longer because I perused the data tables and noticed there was a significant uptick in the “three dose” patient admissions between Oct 21 (0.7) and Dec 21 (8.9).
And one look at the chart and table of BMI rates pretty much confirms what I’ve been saying all along: obesity, plus age, plus comorbidities leads to expensive medical interventions.
“When diet is wrong, medicine is of no use. When diet is correct, medicine is of no need.”
~Ayurvedic Proverb
“Those who think they have no time for healthy eating will sooner or later have to find time for illness.”
LikeLike
Addendum: the second quote is attributed to Edward Stanley.
LikeLike
You ignore the fact that a small percentage of a large number is still a large number. Again and again, you just wave away the fact that comparative RATES is what matters on a population scale (which is what directs public health policy) and on this issue regarding vaccinations and the effect they have on reducing such rates you are simply a reality denier. Then you reiterate lifestyle and diet and pretend these are somehow a reasonable ‘alternative’ to the role vaccination plays. They’re not. They are an integral part and a major consideration estimating rates of risk regarding physiological responses of variant SARS antigens to the population which helps direct vaccination programs. You’ve created this ‘alternative’ yourself and then pretend the medical profession is waving health and diet and comorbidities away. That’s simply not true. That’s misinformation YOU are spreading.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have that reversed. Healthy living is the time-tested standard when it comes to warding off disease, because reality, (i.e. empirical evidence) informs us that a healthy lifestyle leads to a healthy immune system, whereas an unhealthy lifestyle leads to a weakened immune system. So those who assert that chemical injections are a reasonable alternative to healthy living are little more than peddlers of woo and misinformation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So those who assert that chemical injections are a reasonable alternative to healthy living…”
Let’s see if caps do the job…
NO ONE IS SAYING THIS!!!!!
LikeLike
Actually, that is precisely what you are saying when introduce “vaccine passports” and threaten to impose fines/taxes on the “unvaccinated” without regard for whether or not they already have antibodies to the disease.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Especially since antibodies from omicron infection are more effective against all identified Covid strains than are the vaccines and less likely to promote the evolution of new strains than omicron spike specific leaky vaccines.
LikeLike
Ummmm, Ron… It’s the testing because they’re *in* in the hospital.
Now go and wipe that embarrassment off your face…
LikeLike
LikeLike
As well as Pfizer sponsored studies that dishonestly equate omicron resistance derived from delta infection with resistance from a vaccine specific to the delta spike protein, it might be worth noting that Pfizer is the one vaccine manufacturer fighting tooth and nail to enforce the intellectual property laws preventing countries such as India from manufacturing cheap generic vaccines and exporting them to where they’re most needed.
So whatever Pfizer’s agenda is, it’s clearly not vaccines-for-all.
LikeLike
Jonathan Cook on critical thinking.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, anyone would be challenged to convince me there is no self interest involved with these companies falsifying effectivity—and obviously they were a little zealous in the predictions, just like every ad we see here in the states about pharmaceuticals.
Remember the VW TDI emissions scandal? The Boeing parts scandal? The list goes on, yet science and pharmaceuticals are immune to failures like these. Yeah right.
LikeLike
Or the Pfizer fraudulent marketing scandal of 2009 which resulted in the largest fine for healthcare fraud in history.
Unfortunately the business model for fraudulently marketing pharmaceuticals is so profitable Big Pharma can just write off a $2.3 billion dollar fine as a cost of doing business. But the next time you hear a Pfizer spokesperson insisting their patents can’t be waived because they need them as incentives to develop new drugs remember that most of the expenses in bringing new drugs to market are now in marketing, lobbying and paying penalties and lawsuits arising from the criminally irresponsible ways they’re rolled out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From these “corrupt medical-industrial corporations” we get:
Sinopharm (inactivated)* approved approved in 83 countries from 21 trials in 11 countries,
Sinovac (inactivated)* approved in 51 countries from 28 trials in 8 countries,
Covaxin (inactivated)* approved in 13 countries from 7 trials in 1 country,
Covishield (non replicating viral vector)* approved in 47 countries from 2 trials in 1 country,
AstraZeneca (non replicating viral vector)* approved in 134 countries from 53 trials in 24 countries,
Johnson and Johnson (non replicating viral vector)* approved in 99 countries from 16 trials in 18 countries,
Novavax (protein subunit)* approved in 30 countries from 11 trials in 7 countries,
Covovax (non replicating viral vector)* approved in 3 countries from 2 trials in 1 country,
Moderna (RNA)* approved in 83 countries from 35 trials in 9 countries,
Pfizer BioNTech (RNA)* approved in 130 countries from 49 trials in 23 countries
* These vaccine platforms use a variety of methods to all attempt to do the same thing: aid the body’s immune response prior to infection so that when infection does occurs (the immune system encounters the viral antigen) the body’s immune system can mount an effective response (by creating antibodies):
Inactivated means contains copies of the virus
Non replicating viral vector means containing viral genetic packaged inside a harmless virus that cannot copy itself
Protein Subunit contains isolated and purified viral proteins
RNA means it contains viral genetic material which provides the instructions for making viral proteins
So where SPECIFICALLY is the corruption?
It’s (I really don’t have adequate words) beyond ironic that we get a whack job like Jonathan Cook proclaiming more critical thinking is needed to see through the corrupt ‘corporations’ that produce vaccinations while at the same time spewing misinformation and conspiracy theories that rely on some secret global cabal, involve literally tens of thousands of people to carry it out and who ALL must stay oh-so-quiet, while literally millions of people have died from a very real pandemic and continue to get sick with each new wave of infections that we know beyond any reasonable doubt are severely curtailed and effects lessened by these vaccinations to varying degrees, a pandemic that we know has caused an estimated 16 TRILLION dollars of economic damage in just 2021 alone, and a conspiracy that must involve every single government in the world and every epidemiologist to lie to pull off. And this is supposed to be what ‘critical thinking’ looks like?
Wow. Just… wow.
This notion that vaccinations are a product from ‘corrupt medical-industrial corporations’ that has been manufactured as a way to profit is batshit crazy and requires a level of reality denying bullshit that to be effective must shut down actual critical thinking to be believed.
If only there were a vaccine against such mis- and disinformation busy fertilizing the creation of an alternate reality to be sold to the gullible by brain-broken geniuses like Jonathan Cook. Oh wait… there is: it’s called CRITICAL THINKING.
LikeLike
Let me try to understand you tildeb.
Are you seriously trying to say that because pharmaceutical companies manufacture drugs they’re not corrupt?
That paying researchers to add their names to in-house ghost-written studies isn’t corruption?
That hiding adverse events and serious side-effects during trials isn’t corruption?
That burying studies demonstrating lack of efficacy isn’t corruption?
That bribing doctors and hospitals to prescribe their drugs isn’t corruption?
That using invalid proxy end-points and using them to draw false conclusions isn’t corruption?
That none of this is corruption?
So despite the fact that Pfizer still holds the world record for the biggest criminal fine for healthcare fraud in history and made $14.6 billion from vaccines last year (up from $1.7 billion in 2020) it’s “batshit crazy” to suggest it’s a ‘corrupt medical-industrial corporation’ that manufactures vaccines ‘as a way to profit’?
Maybe you should go back to your corporate PR releases and leave the critical thinking for grown-ups tildeb.
BTW, you still haven’t posted a ref to that alleged Israeli study you cited in a recent comment. I’m usually pretty good at finding research like that but can’t find hide nor hair of it, so I’d appreciate a URL. If it’s anything like you claim it to be it’s important, but for some reason no-one except you seems to be talking about it.
LikeLike
So is this the same critical thinking and superiority that leads the world in cancer? (USA)
Science isn’t really to blame but if anything, it is an entire system of entitled baby’s who live a life of stressors and will do anything and say anything to squeak out a few more years of that same pathetic lifestyle that is killing beyond measure. You trust that, I don’t. Maybe the critical thinking problem is yours, not mine.
I don’t think it’s a very praiseworthy lifestyle to get boosters every six months for the rest of your life for what? Prolonged death?
LikeLike
Turns out every six months is very optimistic.
Research so far suggests protection from the 3rd shot (or 1st booster if you prefer) wanes steeply from 10 weeks. Giving people boosters every 2-3 months isn’t likely to be sustainable economically or medically.
There’s a lot of immunologists speaking out against Israel’s 4th shot rollout as it may cause immune system fatigue, particularly in the most vulnerable elderly and immune compromised groups. That not only means ever diminishing returns for subsequent vaccinations but increased susceptibility to other infections.
But what I’m most worried about is that they’ll be rolling out an omicron specific vaccine from April that will give newly emerging variants a selection advantage over omicron.
We struck it lucky with omicron. It seems to have picked up a gene via horizontal insertion from a common cold virus and looks to be far less virulent than any other Covid variants. If it’s allowed to remain the dominant strain there’s a good chance Covid will soon become just another endemic common cold coronavirus. But if a combination of new variants and an omicron specific vaccine wipes it out as omicron is doing to delta then its replacement variant is unlikely to be so benign.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Funny thing is that America’s “leading expert” on infectious disease warned that the cure could be potentially be worse that the treatment way back in May 2020:
LikeLike
Nothing funny about that. In May 2020 there were no Covid vaccines so you could speculate anything you liked about them. Seems to me we now know enough about them to be able to say the risk of harm is likely very low for one or two shots. But three or four shots a year for the rest of my life? I’d rather take my chances with omicron.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There were lots of adverse reactions to the first two shots; but more importantly, the risk of harm from the experimental injection is quite high for the demographic whose risk of harm from the original disease was quite low.
LikeLike
Not as a proportion of the number of people who received them.
You know ‘adverse reactions’ are a bit more serious than ‘side-effects’, right?
But yeah, in a few groups the risk of serious Covid was even smaller than the risk of adverse vaccine events and those pushing for near universal vaccination were either ignorant of that or ignored it. As a result loads of people underwent a medical treatment without informed consent. Nasty precedent that.
Up until now I think the ignorance of anti-vaxxers has been more dangerous than the ignorance of pro-vaxxers, but if they roll out omicron specific vaccines in the absence of even more benign variants that might take over from omicron I think the balance will have shifted in the other direction. Omicron has been far more effective at getting rid of the more dangerous delta strain than any public health program has.
Multiple vaccinations a year indefinitely is also idiotically dangerous, but I think that stupidity will self-correct before too long. Hopefully it won’t have killed too many people before it does.
LikeLike
If expressing concern about the serious side effects — like death, blood clots, heart inflammation, anaphylaxis, paralysis and autoimmune disease (to name but a few) — caused by these experimental drugs is your definition of ignorant anti-vaxer, then so be it. And exactly how many of these “rare” events would need to occur before we stop calling these “vaccines” safe and effective?
LikeLike
I have a close friend with general good health who has been in the ICU now 12 days after receiving the jab. Now has an autoimmune response attacking her own proteins. It safe. Very safe. She was mandated to get it against her wishes by her wonderful wise Panama government whose overreach included those living peacefully in the jungle.
LikeLiked by 2 people
IMO (for what it’s worth), there are going to be people who are affected by the virus … and there are those who will NOT be affected by the virus. Whether vaccinated or not.
In many ways, yes, it does go back to Ron’s repeated mantra related to one’s efforts at maintaining good health, but this is not the end-all/be-all solution. Sometimes we need a little “help” to preserve that good health.
Of course, I’m just one more person interjecting my thoughts into this VERY LENGTHY (and seemingly unresolvable) conversation … so do with them as you will. And Happy New Year!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s maddening, isn’t it. There’s no option for informed consent; and in many cases, no personal liability attributes to the ones issuing these mandates, because they have no skin in the game. . If someone else suffers for their mistakes — be it financially, emotionally, psychologically or health wise — they simply shrug it off with a dismissive “too bad, so sad” (for you). So much for “we’re all in it together” — eh?
Here’s a short clip of a woman asking for the “vaccine” safety insert and the outcome of that request.
LikeLike
This article you reference demonstrates the danger of trusting that larger trends can be determined by small sample sizes. In fact the ‘waning’ mentioned here is because the original patients had 2 doses of AZ but were responding to both Delta and Omicron. So to tract vaccination effectiveness against Omicron means one has to account for the various kinds of vaccines and boosters over time with a good sample size and so these must be tracked accordingly.
In fact, this larger sample shows even after 10 weeks all versions of vaccinations have a combined effect of about 85-95% efficacy keeping people out of hospitals. That’s huge because the 70X transmissibility of Omicron vs Delta means way more people are going to show up over a condensed period of time at the hospitals even with vaccination mitigation. So it’s very good news indeed to find out the most likely people to get complex symptoms (those over the age of 65) have 94% efficacy from the boosters (compared to those who did not have boosters) after 9 weeks and this ‘wanes’ to 89% after 10. Because Omicron is a burner kind of virus AND beats out Delta, this is the key time for booster effectiveness which is very high.
Also in the good news department, hospital admissions for Covid out of London are declining at the same rate that South Africa reported their decline. If this booster can get the majority of the population through the next 6 weeks without crushing our hospital capacity (Covid admissions plus lack of staff), there is a very good chance ‘normal’ can resume by May. And with a vaccination on the horizon for the entire family of corona viruses, 2023 may see every version and variant of SARS in the rear view mirror. Of course, that, too, depends on achieving a high level of mass vaccination. What are then chances someone like Ron would ever voluntarily agree when the safest most effective vaccine in human history to date isn’t up to his expert snuff?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are you posting from a parallel universe tildeb?
What the article says is:
“Among those who received two doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, a booster of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine was 60% effective at preventing symptomatic disease 2 to 4 weeks after the shot. But after 10 weeks, the Pfizer booster was 35% effective, and the Moderna booster was 45% effective. (The AstraZeneca vaccine is not authorized in the U.S., but the Johnson & Johnson shot uses a similar technology, The New York Times reported.)
Among those who received three Pfizer doses, vaccine effectiveness was 70% about a week after the booster but dropped to 45% after 10 weeks. At the same time, those who received an initial two-dose series of the Pfizer vaccine and then a Moderna booster seemed to have 75% effectiveness up to 9 weeks.
The report was based on an analysis of 148,000 Delta cases and 68,000 Omicron cases in the U.K. through Dec. 20. So far, the U.K. health officials wrote, Omicron infections appear to be less severe and less likely to lead to hospitalization than Delta infections.”
I don’t know what you mean by “this larger sample …” – another one of your unreferenced claims that can’t be checked – but at over 200,000 cases this is a pretty big sample. And it includes both double AZ vaxxed patients with mRNA boosters and triple mRNA vaxxed patients. So your comment seems blissfully disconnected from the reality of the study.
Yes it is good news that the duration of omicron outbreaks seems a lot briefer than for previous variants – with most of the data on that coming from South Africa where they didn’t implement a booster before the outbreak. Can you see your huge non-sequitur in crediting the booster tildeb? Because I think everyone else can.
The reason the omicron waves are passing quickly is almost certainly because it spreads so quickly. So what you’re getting is (probably short lived) herd immunity that’s breaking the wave. This is more than likely to be achieved before the boosters have been rolled out and take effect (about 2 weeks after the shot), so while there might be a case for them in vulnerable groups who can be isolated for the duration of the wave (e.g. nursing home residents) rolling them out to the general population is gonna be redundant in terms of controlling the pandemic and risky in terms of individuals. Capacity shortages don’t just mean some people will be waiting for the vaccines and health staff to become available it also means bottlenecks of people – some of whom will be Covid positive – at vaccination sites. Anyone who gets exposed there will develop the disease before the booster takes effect.
LikeLike
We’re actually on the same page here. I did not mean to imply boosters are responsible for ending the wave but that boosters can help get us through the wave. I thought I had made that clear suggesting the six week time frame. If not, my bad.
Nor did I mean to suggest that vaccine efficacy doesn’t wane over time when the approach is a manufactured RNA vaccine that the body eliminates completely within a few weeks compared to attenuated vaccines. My point was that we don’t need to care much how long the vaccines work to avoid and/or reduce Covid if we can get through the highly infectious Omicron wave and make it to the corona virus vaccine (hopefully) without overwhelming and then crushing our health care systems and driving those who staff them out of the profession entirely, as well as drastically affecting every service by temporarily reducing the availability of staff. That’s where the boosters play a key role, not because they offer long term protection but because they help keep the extraordinarily high numbers of infections much, much lower from developing symptoms that require hospitalization. In addition, the boosters unquestionably keep the rate of reinfection much, much lower than it otherwise would be from an unboostered (is that even a word?) population subjected to Omicron. In other words, I was trying to criticize the study you referred to as not adequately comparing boostered to not boostered, which I thought was important to mention. That’s also why I mentioned the very high efficacy of boosters for those most likely to get these complex symptoms even after the 10 weeks you referred to. I thought it important to say this so that readers didn’t presume that loss of efficacy over time for those best able to handle infection from the Omicron antigen (including those who had overcome previous Covid infections) which is what your referred study makes clear by highlighting LOSS of efficacy seems to make the booster program of questionable value. That is not the case in fact. It is of TREMENDOUS value when it is timely. And the study out of England shows this ( here ).
So, yes, all these mRNA vaccines and boosters wane but that’s not the important takeaway. The important element is whether or not boosters help entire populations better handle the Omicron wave. And the answer to that is yes.
LikeLike
”driving those who staff them out of the profession entirely, as well as drastically affecting every service by temporarily reducing the availability of staff.”
So, through the mandates we lost here anyway—by forcibly reducing staff and driving them out of key professions—forcing those willing to work to make a political decision to keep their jobs. We have all of our mountain passes closed because of snow conditions. What they’re not telling us is, because of the mandate we lost 402 dot workers. The system isn’t overwhelmed because of covid, but because of inept politicos thinking their meddling and pushing people around is effective in any way. Without their fear based “scientific” wisdom to control nature I’d bet this would’ve been over a year ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve raised what seems like a very reasonable point. So I’m going to take this opportunity to use it as a way to highlight what gathering good information means and why it’s so important.
You have to remember that a US situation and all its local expressions is among a global community. Local policies are often criticized based on selected negative local effects as if this settles some larger point. But does it? For example, you use workers disallowed from working and draw a conclusion that ‘shortages’ are therefore self-inflicted by such policies. Well, yes… but also no. And the ‘no’ in the larger sense vastly outweighs the ‘yes’ in its narrow sense.
If you compare that local example to, say, the one year anniversary tabulated by Medcare, you’ll see that more than 3,000 frontline healthcare workers – those who care for Covid patients – in the US died from contracting Covid… most likely at work (here in Canada over the past year – so after the Medcare timeline but with all that has been learned from that first year applied in the second – that number is still 95,000 who have contracted Covid – about 20% of frontline healthcare workers with ‘only’ 43 doctors dying from it). If you could cut that number by half, let’s say, would you – as a local health officer armed with the necessary legislated power – do it? Would you make an enforceable policy that achieves this goal? Or would you stand back, stand by, and let the virus have its way and do nothing? Which approach is the most medically defensible position so that Jim’s opinion alone is not the sole basis?
Fortunately, we have people who gather this kind of data. Not just in the US but across the globe. We have people with epidemiological expertise whose job is to collect, collate, and interpret millions of data points like those raised in every local area to find out. We have the means to gather all of this information and have highly experienced epidemiologists put together an overview of what is going on , where it is unfolding, and what we can do to affect in their professional opinion future outcomes. Then more data is collected globally on whether or not these recommendations if implemented and by what means over what period of time actually do what these experts were hoping they would accomplish and to what if any extent.
This is where the local example of denying workers based on vaccination policy becomes medically meaningful and so it’s very important to get ‘good’ information – professionally unbiased collated opinions whether or not this achieves the effect of either a net benefit or loss. Those unbiased collated opinions is called ‘consensus’ and it is always a work in progress as more and more information is gathered.
This is why epidemiological consensus is what drives public healthcare policy regarding issues like mandating vaccinations for workers and not the opinion of Jim or Tildeb or even a Fauci.
And this is why anti-vaxers will almost always present local decisions as being ‘just another opinion equivalent to any other.’ It is a tactic to undermine the expertise being used on side of these questions in order to sell misinformation under the guise of ‘respecting’ any individual’s personal opinion as if equivalent. So any information that seems to do the job of supporting the anti-vax position is packaged as if equivalent ‘good’ information. That’s why you’ll be hard pressed to find any epidemiologist who is an anti-vaxer! The data is absolutely unquestionably clear that vaccination is a very powerful and effective tool in their arsenal against all kinds of infectious diseases. There is literally no medically valid question about this fact no matter what other issues are raised about particular and/or local concerns regarding specific kinds and cohorts most affected.
So when the epidemiological consensus is that restricting non vaccinated people in a variety of ways is justified to reduce overall harm, we should listen. We should understand that our contrary opinion is not equivalent and that we should grant a level of trust to the consensus BECAUSE we know our understanding is not equivalent in this matter. We are free to disagree but obligated to submit or accept the restrictions as the cost of acting on our contrary opinions.
So yes, local workers are dismissed and shortages from this do occur but far more shortages of longer duration and more severe effects in more vital sectors are exacerbated by those who will not act responsibly and yet think well of themselves and their civic virtue for rejecting medical consensus. They know not what they do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So let’s imagine this RIF is nationalized vs localized only in Washington state. This makes it justifiably worse for the common good? Your answer is the most convoluted appreciation for mismanagement I’ve ever heard, I believe.
I think the biggest concern is the arrogance of officials that think because our microscopes can see now, way too infinitely small that they can somehow interpret these “professionally unbiased collated opinions whether or not this achieves the effect of either a net benefit or loss.” No decision, however meaningful can account for all the variables. I have to agree with Robert Oppenheimer on this one. “ It is perfectly obvious that the whole world is going to hell. The only possible chance that it might not is that we do not attempt to prevent it from doing so.”
Without our intervention this pandemic would be over. Now we can detect the slightest changes in variants and adjust accordingly, while simultaneously destroying whatever quality of life the macro had to offer. Destroyed by expert analysis of data where each point has a million variables. This is a fact—it cannot be done.
LikeLike
Each of the variants have evolved and emerged from unvaccinated populations, not that seems to dent your anti-vax beliefs one bit.
Your point that it would all be over by now is not just wishful thinking, Jim. It’s a recipe to repeat and rinse the worst case scenario… skipping the rinsing stage. The reason the US is an outlier for much higher rates of mass casualties and incredible numbers of disabled from Covid and maximum loss of economy compared to every other first world nation is because the national response was to stand back and stand by and allow this disaster to unfold for the first year (while at the same time having private companies developing effective vaccines, thank goodness). Every indicator after rolling out mass vaccination in the US shows wide scale improvement… but curtailed every time by too large a percentage of unvaccinated people aiding and abetting the next variant to gain significantly higher rates of antigen effect. American ingenuity is only matched by American ignorance, both touted as high virtues. Remarkable.
LikeLike
Im not anti-vax. I thought I made that clear several hundred comments ago. I do believe in nature though, and that the reasons this pandemic exists are still being ignored to promote belief systems that give life far more meaning than it does. Oppenheimer was right. We never let nature take its course because of some hidden value in the souls of individuals that doesn’t exist. If we want the show to go on maybe, just maybe we should let a thing or two play out and watch what happens? Heavens no. We meddle in everything like we’re superior to nature and natural responses to arrogant living—until it’s wound up so tight nobody will see what hit them. Boom!
LikeLiked by 1 person
” I do believe in nature though, and that the reasons this pandemic exists are still being ignored to promote belief systems that give life far more meaning than it does.”
LIFE produces all manner of nature including puppies and pandemics, some of which are not just detrimental to human life but toxic to both entire species and ecosystems. Too many people forget that humans are also a product of this disinterested nature and everything we do with life is also all part of nature. This notion that ‘nature’ is somehow and miraculously ‘good’ (or being ignored by epidemiologists) are truly deluded; nature in fact generally tries to kill us. We defend ourselves and our survival by trying to live in balance with nature, and that, too, is a work in progress. Coming to a verdict now is the height of hubris but absolutely typical in today’s black and white woke world. That’s why Ron knows better than every medical expert in the world. He is the rightful judge and jury on whichever matter he sets his opinions on.
Seen another way, of what possible benefit to humanity is standing idly by during yet another pandemic and letting nature take its (deadly) course? Are the days of polio (less viral and less damaging than Covid, BTW) and smallpox the ‘good ol’ days for such nature appeasers?
So the question I guess is whether or not you are serving human life or serving human death with such a judgement?
LikeLike
”This notion that ‘nature’ is somehow and miraculously ‘good’ (or being ignored by epidemiologists) are truly deluded;”
I didn’t say nature is good, but I trust it. One problem is you know evolution is real, but you do not trust it. You might put your money where your mouth is and trust it. Just see what happens. Left to it’s own it’s mostly correct. That’s a lot more than I can say for decision makers.
LikeLike
If we were living subsistence in the woods or plains with a small tribe, then sure. I would trust evolution to have provided me with what I need to do my best to survive and reproduce. But that’s NOT the world we inhabit, Jim.
We live in a highly urbanized complex interconnected social network where contagions can and have and shall continue to wreak havoc and cause a lot of suffering if people are left to their own devices. Fortunately, we also come with a brain that is capable of producing manufactured protein strands on RNA for incredibly effective vaccinations against these indifferent wee beasties. So it’s NOT using one’s brain in the event of a public contagion and putting aside our very best defenses in the name of something else that produces unnecessary harm and suffering. That is not a sign of intelligence.
LikeLike
It actually is the world we live in. You may think you can outsmart it, but simply falling into the hands of self directed and random change. Your insistence we prolong it will lead to greater mandates and existential anxiety.
I’m beginning to thing you’re having a crisis of faith. Have you some irredeemable qualities of your past that drive you to comply?
My wife is a rules person like you. Consensus isn’t always a redeeming quality. We are shadows of our former selves, societies and technologies, yet think we really have it going. So did those extinct civilizations that thought they could outsmart it as well.
I know you and I have different philosophies of life and death and that’s ok. Yours is as natural as any Hebrew offshoot. Mine is as natural as mine.
Thank you for the compliment, btw. You stated you couldn’t tell if I was supporting human life or death. The correct answer is—neither one. I have no illusions that things should be any different than they are. Can they be, considering the tools we have to work with? Whatever the case, it’s a great game this is.
LikeLike
Ah! So the failure of the vaccines to stave off the variants in 100% double- and triple- “vaccinated” Gibraltar and Israel is entirely attributable to the statistically insignificant “unvaxxed” populations in those locations? Doesn’t say much for the efficacy of the “vaccines” then — does it?
Watching the so-called “experts” continuously back peddle and shift the goal posts to keep the fear narrative in play is somewhat amusing, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Again, here are the facts:
Slow the spread = less transmission = less replication = less mutation = fewer new variants
Anyone who pretends this is not true is lying to you intentionally or not.
In fact, the latest data out of the Netherlands and Germany show a rather remarkable difference post double vaxed across the populations: sure, Omicron has been like a tidal wave in rising cases (well clutch my pearls… vaccinations must be a failure then! Umm, no, you draw that conclusion because you’re NOT a virologist you have NO CLUE what all this means), but unlike every other wave prior to populations receiving 2 doses of vaccination, the RATE of hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and death rates per positive case is plunging. So the truth is not what Ron is saying here; clearly and unequivocally, the facts are that vaccinations have and are playing a HUGE role in getting us through this highly infectious wave.
And then there’s Expert Ron’s alternative reality…
LikeLike
the RATE of hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and death rates per positive case is plunging.
Can confirm. Omicron is tear arsing through the valley here, but hospitalisations and deaths are way, way down. To give you an example– for the last 2 years I have only heard of people vaguely in my orbit who had contracted Covid, with one death. In the last two weeks, I know eight people directly who presently have it. But, our high vaccination rate has staved off a disaster.
LikeLike
Can also confirm here, too. Case loads at historic heights, hospital admissions at a much lower rate, deaths significantly lower. Pediatric admissions, however, at a much higher rate and a rising rate of unvaxed children with complex symptoms (especially MIC-C: multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children).
Like you, JZ, and unlike in previous waves where I knew few people who got the virus, I personally know dozens of people who have had or now have Omicron – all of whom have come through it without complex symptoms, thankfully. And that thanks belongs to vaccinations and that every one of those people were fully vaccinated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just saw this:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Except that omicron ripped through South Africa when it’s vaccination rate was still <25% and it too had quite low rates of hospitalisation and death.
Fairly recent vaccinations would certainly have played a part, but the main thing that staved off a disaster is that omicron is a much milder disease than delta. What's more, it's driven delta almost to extinction everywhere it's taken hold. So if an omicron specific vaccine is rolled out that gives a more lethal new variant an advantage over it you might still get your disaster.
LikeLike
If ‘milder,’ fantastic. Not sure if predicting what mutations will occur (mutations which are predominantly assisted by the unvaccinated) is terribly wise, though. If we have it by the throat, then let’s strangle the fucker now.
LikeLike
You’d have to go a long way to find anyone in the medical community who thinks we’ll ever eliminate Covid.
And it’s not mutations that produce new VOCs, it’s environments that give those mutations a selection advantage. And mass vaccination with leaky vaccines provide just such an environment.
LikeLike
You’re just a single step of reductive syllogism away from an important self-realisation here tildeb.
Let’s see if you’re capable of taking it.
P1: If you’re not a virologist you have no clue what all this means
P2: Tildeb is not a virologist
C: Therefore …
Now really strain tildeb and see if you can fill in the conclusion.
Maybe someday we’ll even learn why, in light of the conclusion, you insist on ineptly pretending the opposite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
For Darwin’s sake tildeb, would you please try to think for yourself just once before mindlessly parroting the propaganda of your preferred experts.
Only one significant Covid strain has emerged since large scale vaccination started. Omicron. No-one knows where it initially emerged or even if it emerged within humans, rather than developing in an animal population then jumping back to us. But it’s obviously in the interests of those flogging vaccines to claim it developed in the unvaccinated, so that’s what was initially put about in the media despite zero evidence supporting it.
But ‘leaky’ vaccines – such as all the Covid vaccines – are known to promote the development of more contagious and virulent virus strains. Omicron evades immunity better than previous strains so it has a particular selection advantage over other variants both in the bodies of vaccinated individuals and among vaccinated populations. Due to all the spike mutations it’s particularly adept at avoiding spike antibodies, which are exactly the sort the vaccines (as opposed to prior Covid infections) produce. Vaccinated populations provide the maximum selection advantage for omicron.
So, other than uncritically sucking down propaganda, there is no reason whatsoever to believe omicron emerged from the unvaccinated and, on the balance of probabilities, good reason to believe the opposite.
So how about you start critically examining evidence instead of just regurgitating the bullshit you like to swallow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Vaccinated populations provide the maximum selection advantage for omicron.”
No. Factually wrong. Not that that matters to you.
I will say again, I am passing along what is considered by virologists and immunologists ‘good’ information. You can call it whatever you want but know, please, that this is not my opinion nor the result of ‘swallowing propaganda’. It is what it is. And you can go scream at the moon about how capable you are of seeing beyond and through what so many experts think. It has nothing to do with me.
LikeLike
Either spike specific vaccines provide no more protection against the proteins they target than those they don’t or pre-omicron vaccines maximise omicron’s selection advantage over other strains. You can’t have it both ways tildeb, so which is it to be? Simply blocking your eyes and ears and singing “Not true, not true, not true …” doesn’t cut it.
If delta vaccines properly target delta they helped omicron. If omicron vaccines properly target omicron they’ll help the next VOC to emerge.
LikeLike
If you want to see FUBAR in action, you need look no further than north of the border. A few months ago the Quebec government wanted to fire all its “unvaxxed” healthcare workers. Now it is demanding that COVID-infected workers stay on the job to keep its threadbare services running and plans to fine those who refuse to take the experimental cocktails.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The FUBAR is caused by the unvaxed whose refusal to be vaccinated has resulted in overwhelming the system. So the Premier of Quebec is under pressure to ‘tax the unvaxed’ with an additional surcharge of a ‘substantial’ amount because the unvaxed idiots are getting medical treatment while the fully vaxed suffer a withdrawal of healthcare services.
So yeah, Ron, this is the effect people like you cause. If you lived in Quebec, you would be subject to a rise in real public anger at your irresponsible intransigence about doing your part to help others, accepting a proven public mitigation treatment through vaccination, and that by refusing to do your civic duty, refusing to help others with such a simple and free act of getting a few shots, you are blind, deaf, and dumb to causing real harm to real people in real life who are not as irresponsible and uncaring and stupidly selfish as you are. I am amazed at how often the unvaxed assume no one should be royally pissed at their irresponsible behaviour and that there should be no undue consequences for their selfishness putting everyone else at higher risk and forcing the loss of life saving measures to address the results of such stupidity. Well, guess what? Sometimes what goes around comes around. You deserve to pay more than responsible civic-minded people in a civil society.
LikeLike
The reason the system is so overwhelmed is because previous governments failed to plan ahead for the day when an of aging population with multiple comorbidities would stress the system to its max. That can got kicked down the road and now the day of reckoning has finally arrived.
As for your accusation (“the effect people like you cause”): it also falls flat because I have never set foot in a hospital to get treated for an infectious disease in my entire life.
So the real harm isn’t “unvaxed” people like myself who lead a healthy lifestyle: it’s the mini-dictators like yourself who feel emboldened to trample over the personal liberties of others under the pretense of serving some greater “public good”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Though I hope you recognise that some day you’re likely to be part of ‘an aging population with multiple comorbidities’, so your current healthy lifestyle won’t count for much.
Might also be good to check your privilege by acknowledging many have genetic, environmental and socio-economic circumstances beyond their control that preclude them from ever attaining your very fortunate level of good health, so are forced to rely on public health measures that may include restraining others from putting their health in greater danger.
LikeLike
I plan to be part of an aging population w/o the comorbidities that accrue from decades of unhealthy living. Hence the reason I tout healthy living. And you don’t need any special privileges to achieve that goal; just personal discipline.
LikeLike
I see.
Being born without congenital health defects is just a matter of discipline.
Having parents who properly nurture you while you’re too young to care for yourself is a matter of discipline.
Being raised somewhere free of pollutants that cause permanent health damage is a matter of discipline.
Having a safe workplace and getting a living wage is a matter of discipline.
Avoiding being hit by a drunk driver or shot by a second amendment moron who had a bout of paranoia when he saw you is a matter of discipline.
So if anyone ever gets chronically ill, seriously injured or lacks the resources to properly feed and exercise themselves it’s all their own fault for lacking discipline.
I think I know where you’re coming from Ron.
No privileges there, eh?
LikeLike
“Being born without congenital health defects is just a matter of discipline.”
Was every single person now in poor health born with congenital health defect?
“Having parents who properly nurture you while you’re too young to care for yourself is a matter of discipline.”
Do you always remain a child? Or does you eventually grow up and take on the responsibility of making your own health decisions?
“Being raised somewhere free of pollutants that cause permanent health damage is a matter of discipline.”
Can you name a largely populated place on earth that’s entirely free of environmental pollution?
“Having a safe workplace and getting a living wage is a matter of discipline.”
What exactly constitutes a “safe” workspace or a “living” wage? Those terms are entirely subjective.
“Avoiding being hit by a drunk driver or shot by a second amendment moron who had a bout of paranoia when he saw you is a matter of discipline.”
How does that factor in to our discussion about healthy living and late life comorbidities?
“So if anyone ever gets chronically ill, seriously injured or lacks the resources to properly feed and exercise themselves it’s all their own fault for lacking discipline.”
I never wrote that so your argument is directed towards a straw man.
LikeLike
Actually, Ron, it is. And the proof is the rate of infectious people requiring hospitalization and ICU in Quebec is DRIVEN by the small percentage of unvaxed people who then require and then use a vastly disproportionate amount of health care resources. This meeting of the unnecessary demand stops vaxed people who have done their part from getting other necessary health care services. Like cancer treatment. Like surgeries. Like screening. Like replacement joints. When you add the often rude and hostile attitude many unvaxed people in the ER show towards those health care providers who know they are diverting their time and effort and equipment and beds to those who don’t give a flying fuck about anyone but themselves but cover this selfishness and obstinancy and even ignorance in high sounding terms, you have a recipe for the kind of Draconian move by the government to charge the unvaxed a tax. Believe me, a huge number of people who vote think it’s about time the unvaxed – going into a third year of this pandemic – finally pay their fair share for this ongoing harm. That’s why there’s so much simmering anger from the general population directed at those who are not getting vaxed and refusing to do their part to help others as they expect and demand to be helped by them. Maybe a ten thousand dollar surcharge to even enter a hospital unvaxed for any reason at all. What do you think? Too little? Let’s ask the people who have lost loved ones to treatable cancers but who were denied treatment for lack of health care workers. Let’s ask someone living with agonizing joint pain as their surgery is postponed for the tenth time. How much is their unnecessary pain and suffering worth to a person who insists they will not get vaccinated but wants some health care themselves? You tell me. If reason won’t work to aid the public, then maybe it’s time to up the ante when it comes to USING health care provided by the public.
LikeLike
Little wonder, considering how much propaganda has been going into manipulating the mindless into scapegoating the unvaxxed rather than placing blame on successive governments who’ve neglected the hospital system or on pharmaceutical companies who’ve invested PR & lobbying megabucks into ensuring our health systems serve their profits ahead of our health.
LikeLike
From the preamble of the Canada Health Act
and from Section 3, of same document:
” It is hereby declared that the primary objective of Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and restore the physical and mental well-being of residents of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers.”
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-6/page-1.html
So what do I think? I think you support striking a core principle (universal access) from the CHA based on lifestyle choices. Best be careful what you wish for. Today, it’s those who refuse your chemical injections. Next it might be those who refuse to stop smoking. Thereafter, it will become those who drink and eat to excess, or engage in other dangerous activities.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Canadian cigs are $14-$18 a pack. The wholesale cost is roughly $3.50. Smokers are already paying for future complications in tax, but that won’t stop the punitive mindsets from ostracizing those who enjoy the herb.
LikeLike
I remember reading about a decade ago that taxes from cigarettes produce 3 times the revenue than is spent on the health care cost to related smoking illnesses. I have no clue where that figure is today.
LikeLike
Smokers carry their weight (no pun) so comparing smokers to anything costing extra should be over.
LikeLike
Not for planes. If our luggage is weighed and scored, so too should people be. Fat people should pay more.
LikeLike
Only if they need an extra seat. I think an airline tried this once and the publicity was too much.
LikeLike
No, no, no, no, no. Luggage is weighed, not measured for dimensions (excluding carry on). By those rules people should also be weighed.
Sure, you could have a ceiling cap on it for the fat people, but smaller, lighter, leaner people should pay less… by the rules already in place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You must be flying soon? Is this an attempt to save some cash? I don’t suppose you care to go back to Australia anytime soon?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always looking to fly! And it would save a bundle… and it’d be “fair.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
A fair fare is fairly fair if your a skinny ass. Unless you get a discount if you’re sandwiched in a middle seat between two bigs?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You wouldn’t say no to paying half to get to Panama, right?
LikeLike
¡Correctamente!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep. If it was to be applied consistently rather than selectively to create convenient scapegoats that’s exactly what would happen. Which is one reason so many medical ethicists have rushed into print to express how appalled they are at suggestions such as those made by tildeb.
LikeLike
I passed it along after a comment about Quebec surfaced. I didn’t make the suggestion(s) as you falsely accuse me of making and then spend time alone imagining that a bunch of ethicists rushed forth to disagree with me. Again, this narrative you build is a fiction created in your mind about me and then used by you to malign my character. Stop bearing false witness, you git. You are a piece of work.
LikeLike
I didn’t even mention you in that comment tildeb. Your paranoia is getting the better of you.
But since you raised the topic of tildeb bashing – one of my favorite forms of relaxation – I think I’ll note here that you rarely take responsibility for the opinions expressed in your comments, preferring instead to attribute (or misattribute) them to miscellaneous ‘experts’, health workers, public officials or, now, generic Quebecois.
Whether you repeatedly say “the unvaccinated should be punished” or “the unvaccinated should be punished according to what people say”, scapegoating is still scapegoating. That you lack the spine to own your remarks is neither here nor there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops, my bad again. I read the wrong earlier comment before responding to yours.
Many apologies tildeb. Your paranoia remains discretely veiled for now (though I’m tempted to make another comment about BLM to bring it out in all its frothing glory).
LikeLike
Amazing. Even with an apology you manage to use it as an opportunity to smear my character. How very heartfelt.
LikeLike
Thank you.
I do try to use words efficiently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everyone still has access. What Quebec is suggesting is an additional premium at the policy end in the same way a driver with a bad record can be charged a higher premium. There’s no denial of service. I’m not saying I agree with it, but I understand it.
LikeLike
Yet it specifically states “reasonable access to health services without financial or other barriers”.
Adding an additional premium would not only violate the TOS, but would also create an undue financial hardship on those lacking the means to pay it.
LikeLike
It’s a shame if the Quebecois are really that susceptible to propaganda, manipulation and scapegoating.
Here’s hoping no populist racist politicians arise to take advantage of that.
LikeLike
The announcement comes as no surprise. Quebec is and has been the most exclusionary and xenophobic province in Canada. Anglophones, foreigners, Muslims, and now the non-injected are all considered persona-non-grata in their “distinct society”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually, it’s interesting you say this because most people outside of Quebec really don’t understand Quebec at all and so, when certain issues like this come up, the Quebec way (usually a popular way in Quebec) tends to reinforce the description you have used here. This, in turn, tends to reinforce the Quebec viewpoint that the ROC (Rest of Canada) is not interested in respecting the role of Quebec in Confederation but are a bunch of ignorant bullies trying to destroy Quebec culture through assimilation.
So to understand Quebec’s approach to issues requires an understanding of why there are such stark differences (to the way other provincial governments might respond, particularly Ontario). A fundamental difference rest first of all in power; the Quebec government is not just another provincial government. It is a national government inside a federated state. It is national not only in terminology (the National Assembly) but in sharing many of the same powers that are only federal to the ROC. One of those powers they share is about culture, and control of the Quebec culture long predates Confederation and was the central conditions for Quebec making peace with the English. So this is not new but a fundamental aspect the makes Quebec different from all other provinces and equal to the federal government. Most Canadians outside of Quebec don’t even grasp this much; they think of Quebec as another province.
So. The previous Trudeau Sr. implemented some of the recommendations for a Royal Commission back in the 60s (under Pearson) that was intended to suggest ways to recognizing the importance of Quebec to Canada (like the Official Languages legislation mandating French and English in all federal offices) aimed at keeping Quebec in Canada when separation was a much stronger and more popular political issue in Quebec. There were a bunch of good ideas and a bunch of bad ideas (specifically omitting First Nations as a founding people, for example). Trudeau Sr passed legislation making Canada’s policies – foreign and domestic – multicultural… emphasis on ‘multi’. This meant recognizing and ‘celebrating’ cultural diversity as an official policy. But Quebec regarded this policy as a direct threat to its francophone heritage. This gave rise to the the terrorist group out of Quebec the FLQ and caused the Trudeau government to impose the War Measures Act and suspend all civil liberties. This was a Very Big Deal and in turn led to the popular shift politically in Quebec to a separatist party that really was aimed at leaving Canada entirely.
Culture in Quebec is itself central to the francophone population and central to how Canadian political stability. So it matters.
And the way it matters is that although Canada has the official policy of multi-culturalism, Quebec does not. Quebec has what is called intra-culturalism where everyone shares a central dominance of francophone culture before any other cultural differences. This insistence is a fundamental part of what it means to be a Quebecer. This is the way the separatist movement was defanged enough to get a vote of almost 60% in favour of staying after the 1980 referendum. Once legislation was passed after this referendum establishing what intra-culturalism looked like in law and local rules (that drove many anglophones from the Province) and the vilification from the ROC for doing so, the second referendum (I mean, you’d think other Canadians would wake up when the official opposition itself was based on achieving political separation for Quebec – 1995) resulted in a 50.58% ‘victory’ to stay in Confederation. That’s why today the federal government is extremely unlikely and unwilling to interfere with Quebec’s francophone first rulings that appear to other Canadians as the most “exclusionary and xenophobic province in Canada. Anglophones, foreigners, Muslims, and now the non-injected.” They are none of these but are often painted this way when francophone culture first goes against some multicultural expectation.
Anyway, I just thought I’d offer this (partial) explanation to help clarify the ‘other side’ of this issue from the Quebec perspective.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m familiar with the history of Canada. But it doesn’t change the the “optics” of situation: Quebec has chosen to sacrifice personal liberties to pursue its ideal of cultural identity.
LikeLike
Anything that threatens the primacy of the francophone identity will be suppressed by government policy. To the ROC, that is what looks like intolerance and xenophobia and so on. However, it is entirely reasonable when understood within an intra-cultural framework. A good example is the law coined outside of Quebec as the ‘secular’ law, where any agent with authority acting on behalf of the state cannot advertise and represent personal religious affiliation but should appear neutral to those they serve. To the ROC, this appears as intolerance to the multicultural practice of encouraging such personal demonstrations by everyone in positions of public authority. But in Quebec, to protect the francophone identity for all Quebecers to share equally first, regardless of any other secondary cultural affiliations, the government has passed legislation curtailing this kind of personal expression in public roles. Yes, it’s secular when it comes to religion but it is the case across the board. That’s why the federal government will not challenge this in court, because Quebec has every right to do this even if most Canadians have no clue why.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It doesn’t just look like intolerance — it is intolerance. And TROC has every right to show concern when one specific provincial government continuously runs roughshod over the Charter Rights granted to all Canadian citizens as a pretext to propping up its “cultural identity”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Call me “ignorant” if you wish (tildeb has called me worse) but being concerned about the wide-spread rollouts of experimental drugs having “side-effects” like death, blood clots, anaphylaxis, heart inflammations, nerve damage, autoimmune disease and paralysis does not make one anti-vax. And if the proportion of adverse reactions to number of injections is to become the sole criterion here, then lets put a precise number on this beast: exactly how many “rare” adverse reactions would you deem as acceptable collateral damage before we stop calling these COVID-19 “vaccines” safe and effective?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, I guess that’s a relative term.
Considering the lethality of earlier strains of Covid to the elderly, obese, immune compromised and those with respiratory conditions the very small proportion of serious adverse events due to the vaccines made them safe and effective compared to the alternative.
For younger, healthier people they were less safe and effective at a personal level but as they also reduced (somewhat) the chances they’d contract the virus and pass it on to a more vulnerable loved one I guess it’s their call as to whether it’s safe and effective.
If vaccines for the omicron strain have a similar proportion of adverse events I think it’s much easier to argue they’re not safe and effective, as the risk:benefit ratio would shift even further against them.
Nothing is absolutely safe. Drinking milk has killed people. The question is really down to risk:benefit and I think overall the delta vaccines demonstrated much more benefit than risk while delta was running rampant. That’s no longer the case though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps. But the link to a technical briefing from Public Health England I provided in another comment upthread reported that members of the most vulnerable demographic who’d received two doses actually suffered worse with the Delta variant than those who had one or none. Things that make you go hmmm.
LikeLike