Saturday, September 18

Vaccine Passports

Haven't posted a political blog for a while and gotten myself in trouble with friends and readers, so about time that I did! Today's topic is the advisability of so-called "vaccine passports". I'll lead off by saying I am very strongly against them, and I'll explain why below.

I am a firm believer in personal freedoms, civil liberties, and respecting people's right to choose, especially in regards to decisions affecting their own health. I find vaccine passports are a step in the wrong direction and have the great potential to lead to even further abridgements of civil rights, such as the Chinese social credit system where your access to all sorts of things is curtailed by the government's somewhat arbitrary and hard to appeal notion of whether you are a "good citizen", in their eyes, or not.

I detest the argument that says "nobody is forcing you" around vaccine passports. You can "choose" to not have a passport and you'll just be completely excluded from a livelihood and any meaningful participation in civil society. It's a semantic distinction, nothing more. The coercion is very real. You are effectively being forced.

I am not an absolutist on such matters. That would be a foolish position. So there are limits of course where I would approve coercive measures. If the situation is absolutely clear that your actions are unambiguously causing significant harm to others, and the remedy causes you no physical harm, then I'd absolutely tolerate and even advocate for coercive measures.

However, Covid-19 vaccinations, unfortunately, do not meet that bar in my (and many others') opinion.

We now live in a world where there is no clear and unambiguous information, and plenty of contradictory information. So-called "experts" have proven to be unreliable, scientific papers are slanted by an agenda, peer review is a meaningless political sign-off, politicians have absolutely proven themselves to be untrustworthy, public health organizations have lied to us and present us with incomplete information and flip-flop depending on how the political winds are blowing. And you can find experts and presented data on both sides of the issue.

If you find yourself 100% sure of your point of view (even 90% sure), you are likely a fool. You have no basis for your beliefs whatsoever. And yes, that applies to YOU, no matter what side of the issue you are on.

Some people base their great godlike certainty on a handful of anecdotes or some information reported in the media. Don't be so naive! You are being fed propaganda and you are being manipulated (BOTH sides!).

It's clear by now in the real world that the vaccines are no magic bullet (as other vaccines in the past have been). Even in highly vaccinated jurisdictions, vaccinated people are still catching it, passing it on, getting sick, and dying. As well, there is certainly some level of adverse effects from the vaccine. And the mRNA vaccine technology is experimental in humans, it is the first time it is being rolled out. Longer-term side effects cannot be known.

It seems evident that we will have to live with Covid, vaccine or no vaccine.

It is definitely a draconian measure to effectively force people to take a new type of medical procedure against their will.

We must compare this draconian measure against an alternative, less draconian measure to see if the benefits over the alternative exist and are sufficiently significant as to warrant the draconian measure.

The other alternative to consider is:

  1. Encourage vulnerable people to isolate as much as possible and mask-up as effectively as possible if going out. Allow such people to work from home where possible and support them with delivery services and such as we have been.
  2. Encourage people to become less vulnerable. Get in shape. Lose weight. Get plenty of vitamin D and vitamin C.
  3. Encourage the use of proven safe potential prophylaxis such as Zinc (a known antiviral agent) and zinc ionophores (that speed the zinc into the cells) such as Quercetin, Ivermectin, Hydroxichloriquine.
  4. If people become ill, setup home care and the hospitals with everything they need, such as monoclonal antibody treatments, antibiotics, steroids.
  5. Build up the ICU capacity to handle potential surges (in Canada, due to mismanagement of our dollars, ICUs chronically fill up every single flu season and nobody ever does anything about it).
  6. Encourage people with symptoms to self-isolate and/or mask-up when that is not possible. Symptomatic spread is far greater than asymptomatic, so that alone is a good measure.
  7. Everybody else, go about your business without lockdowns and mask-free.
  8. Allow anybody at all who wants the vaccine to take it at no charge.

The above list is MASSIVELY less expensive to administer than all the money-printing that has gone on due to shutdowns and lockdowns.

People who feel strongly that the vaccine confers protection are free to take it and, in their minds, protect themselves from the unvaccinated.

I don't buy the "but the unvaccinated are flooding our ICUs" argument that therefore prevents somebody with a health emergency from being treated. Certainly not until I see some valid statistics around that (how many people have been turned away and/or delayed sufficiently that there is a serious outcome, and don't give me single anecdotes), and how much ICU capacity compared to the whole is so-occupied (again, don't give me anecdotes - stats!). For example, in my jurisdiction, Ontario, we have 2300 ICU beds and 160 occupied with Covid. At the very peak we had 800, and the vast majority were and are occupied by the very aged with multiple comorbidities who may have wound up there anyways.

The rate of death from heart disease was more than double the rate of Covid at the worst of times. Yet do we mandate a 2000/cal per day diet plus exercise for obese people at the greatest risk? Why don't we? That would free up ICU space, surely. It's a specious argument, just as it is with unvaccinated Covid. Instead we adapt by building out the capacity to meet the demand. See my point 5 above. We've had a year and a half to do it, nearly infinite dollars to spend elsewhere, and yet the dollars are not going there in any significant way. Worse, we are laying off health care workers who choose not to take the vaccine. Insanity.

If we compare the alternative I presented to indiscriminate forced vaccination, are you really 100% sure that the vaccination route is so much more effective as to justify this abridgement of human rights in a murky situation. Really?

There is also good indication (that coincides with all previous experience and expectation) that people who have had Covid and recovered from it have better immunity than vaccinated people. Why is that not taken into account in these vaccine passports?

I am not arguing you should or should not take the vaccine. I chose to take it, as I think it confers protection against bad outcomes if I do get the disease, but I am by no means certain of that. I also think that while there are risks with the vaccine, they are small, but I am by no means certain of that either. For me, given my age, healthy lifestyle, healthy diet, and the vitamins and minerals I supplement with, my risk of Covid is very, very low (on the order of risks I take driving in a car). So are the risks of the vaccine (in my opinion, and of the same tiny order). So with these two tiny risks weighing against each other, I was a bit indifferent to taking the vax or not. What swayed me was the inevitability of these coercive measures, so that is what made up my mind, not health concerns.

And that's pretty shitty.


P.S. just heard this amusing rant from rabid Covid vaccine supporter Ben Shapiro on this issue so I added it here (starts at around the 26 minute mark):


196 comments:

  1. Your conservative trump supporting ass is against the vax passport? I am shocked i am actually agreeing with you but i guess now u care cause it affects u huh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a confusing comment. By far more Democrats are for the vax pass than Republicans? Have you an example where President Trump did something comparable to the vax passport in terms of abridging civil rights?

      Delete
    2. Really, Julie! Here we go again. :)

      The pandemic isn't really debatable. The so-called conflicting opinions are honest expressions of opinion over time. The death toll is real. So is the fact that the disease is transmitted easily when people assemble. Over 95% of people hospitalized for COVID are unvaccinated. The vaccine isn't perfect, but it is proven to be very effective.

      Sadly, some people refuse the protection. That endangers us all. Our (US) government will not issue so-called vaccine passports. Proof of vaccination is not new. Schools have required it for 100 years.

      Someone stupid enough to refuse vaccination needs to be separated from the rest of us. It's true that a very small number of people have valid reasons to avoid it. To protect the public's safety they will have to be isolated from crowds.

      I am never happy about needing to prove identity to do something. It's definitely offensive to me. I recognize the need to protect us from avoidable danger. That's why the TSA screens fliers. It's annoying but necessary.

      You may want to reconsider using the former president as a reason for anything. He is obviously mentally unbalanced. Instead, consider that the small inconvenience of proving innoculation is a sensible way to help control the pandemic.

      Delete
    3. I didn't mention President Trump at all, the commenter did, and I was curious as to why.

      You're one of these people who are so highly certain that you so know that forced vaccination is better than the alternative that you are willing to trample on other people's civil rights. One question: how can you be so sure? Who are you listening to or reading that you trust so much to be so sure?

      This vaccine is not like others. All the other vaccines actually stop the spread of their disease. This one doesn't.

      And I don't think it's at all stupid to refuse the vaccination. And I don't think them refusing it significantly endangers you.

      The TSA still makes you take your shoes off, no? Theatre of security. You're probably all for the patriot act because ignore the spying on your own citizens, it "keeps you safe from terrorists". A sensible precaution. James Clapper was lying to you for your own good. :-)

      Delete
    4. I expected better but please tell me you are joking Julie or are have you drank the kool aid that much.He refused housing for ppl based on skin color in his own condo's.In power Donald Trump aided in the removal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits entities receiving federal funding from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin. He put out front page ads for the deaths of the central park 5 which turned out to be false. He enabled tiki white nationalist to run over ppl. His tweets, the nfl debacle he enabled. He also helped to gut obama care which helped lots ppl who cant even afford the basics.

      Delete
    5. The typical "laundry list". Yawn. Not worth arguing each with you. Pick the one worst thing you believe Trump did during his Presidency, and I'll rebut that.

      Delete
    6. WC here

      Hear here Caged Lion

      Couldn’t agree more

      Delete
    7. Sadly, there are too many that agree with you two. It's the tyrant of the majority. All notions of informed consent to experimental medical treatment (a key item of medical ethics established at Nuremberg trials) and right to privacy out the window because you're running scared because the media made you scared. Still want to know how you can be so damned sure of yourselves that you're willing to advocate to override basic human rights of your fellow citizens.

      Delete
    8. WC here

      Sadly?

      Caged Lion

      We’ve been called out:)

      Delete
    9. Let's narrow the scope to vaccine. No vaccine absolutely blocks a disease. Flu vaccines are usually about 80% effective. If you get sick, the vaccine prevents the disease from being as severe as it would be if you had no protection. That is how vaccines always work.

      The big benefit is that disease can be eradicated if the spread is limited. Once the pandemic is controlled, which means that the number of new cases is very low, then being vaccinated becomes less critical. If the disease has a large number of victims, it is able to mutate and find a way to infect even more people.

      Epidemiology is an established science. Controlling epidemics is something that is well understood. My safety is severely compromised if enough people remain ripe targets for COVID. They provide the breeding ground for the disease to mutate into something we can't stop.

      Did you refuse vaccination? I hope not. I don't want to take a chance on losing you. By the way, this "fictitious" disease has killed one in 500 Americans.

      Also, I never take off my shoes, jacket, etc. at airports. I have been PREscreened. I just go through a metal detector, just like in 1980. See? You do have a choice.

      Delete
    10. Did you not read? You know my status had you.
      Comparing this vaccine to EFFECTIVE vaccines is silly. It's maybe like the flu vaccine, but not like the good vaccines.

      Delete
    11. WC here

      WTF?

      Caged Lion

      I fear there is no hope for her:)

      Julie

      Just stick to sex

      You are good at it!

      Keep far far away from politics:)

      Just my humble opinion

      Delete
    12. WC here again

      Just don’t worry your pretty little head about politics:)

      Delete
    13. While I am usually turned on by being put in my place and talked down to by a man, in this case... not so much. The clit is a little up and to the left, WC.

      Delete
    14. "Pick the one worst thing you believe Trump did during his Presidency."

      How about slanting the Supreme Court to the right with the appointment of a shadowy Christian fundamentalist who is now endangering the rights of women across the United States?

      Delete
    15. That's the best you could do? That's called being a President and appointing people those who voted you in wanted. He was very transparent, promising to pick from a published list, and did that with all his judicial nominees, including the Supreme Court.

      What judgment from ACB have you disagreed with so far, and why?

      Delete
  2. We love you Julie. You need a good spanking for being so forceful in your argument.
    jj

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always need a good spanking, but spanking me for my views is not on!

      Delete
    2. Considering some of the rude comments you get in response to these posts more likely quite a few of the dissenters need a nice belt to their ass until they can learn to argue with respect.

      Delete
    3. Agree! But I have a way of triggering folks.

      Delete
  3. You do not have the right o endanger me, my family, or the rest of society by your refusal to be vaccinated. Your civil rights end when they endanger us all. Don't what to get vaccinated? Then you need to be segregated from the rest of society. Stay with the rest of the Neanderthals

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How are you so sure that the vaccinations are working (they're not) and that you're in danger from somebody unvaccinated (you're not)? The degree of your certainty, no nuance at all, no doubt at all, feels a little "brainwashy", know what I mean?

      Delete
    2. Sometimes, Julie, you're an intelligent wonderfully kinky woman. Other times you write like some mouth breathing uneducated denizen of the Ozarks who only knows the world through Fox News.

      To make all of this even stranger, you live in a social welfare country famous for its generally liberal policies.

      I read your blog for the intelligent wonderfully kinky woman. If your other avatar was the only thing we got I'd never touch your blog.

      Delete
    3. The fact that you can't recognize a nuanced argument and respond intelligently to the points made says a lot more about you than me, just sayin'...

      Delete
    4. Replying to Anonymous at 14:35, an unvaccinated person who has natural immunity as the result of a prior Covid infection is not endangering anyone. There is simply no reason for such a person to get the vaccine. His or her natural immunity is much better protection for him or her or anyone else than the protection the vaccines can offer. In my mind, it's practically criminal for governments or other organizations to force people who already have natural immunity to get a vaccine.

      Delete
    5. I believe that to be correct.

      Delete
    6. So is there a system for determining who has had the disease and built up a natural immunity, or will it result in less deaths overall if we just say everybody get vaccinated?

      Delete
    7. We could take people at their word. Or at least if you had a positive COVID test.

      Delete
    8. I think I'd stick with the guarantee, I don't trust people's ability to diagnose themselves or for the paranoid to try and beat the system. I don't know about you, but I remember a lot of men deciding they'd already had it -_ "I had a really sore throat in January," "I got really tired for a coup!e of days just before Christmas!"

      Delete
    9. Politics is the art of compromise. I could compromise with must show a positive Covid test at some point.

      Delete
    10. But that's exactly the same barrier to your civil liberties and having the government have restrictions on you! Either way there's a velvet rope you need to show paperwork before you can cross! The only difference between person A with the vaccine passport and person B with the positive Covid test is that person B isn't putting money in big pharma's pockets for vaccines, though presumably someone is benefiting from the production of Covid tests!

      Suppose I live in your compromise society and don't want to be vaccinated, but my local supermarket has passports/positive testing in place. Am I just supposed to hope to catch Covid and hope it doesn't kill me so I can buy groceries?

      You give a definition of politics, I offer one of democracy, as given by Winston Churchill: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried." I think the same is true of the vaccine - it's not 100% effective at reducing spread, it's something the government's forcing you to do, there might be unforeseen consequences or issues with manufacturing like the polio vaccine... but what's the second best practical alternative? I grant that the 8 step program you enlisted would be the best in a world where people were well informed, willing to take personal responsibility for the betterment of themselves and society, and where there were more resources for home care, effective ICUs, etc. But people are messy and screws fall out.

      Delete
    11. I just don't think the vaccines are a better alternative, even close. The vaccine is not ending it, clearly.

      Delete
  4. Good for you speaking out on this important issue of our time. - Frank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Frank. I fear more what's coming next, a predictable morphing of this universal digital ID passport into a social credit system of some sort. Governments are all heading that way, increasingly intolerant of any opposing points of view. Communist China is the model.

      Delete
  5. Some very valid points there,particularly the second one. It will be no coincidence that countries with high obesity levels like the US have suffered very badly compared to those where being overweight is less commonplace. Perhaps you could help out by whipping a few fatties into shape!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's not talked about enough. Body shaming is good for you!

      Delete

  6. Hi. You invited me over, so I'm guessing you don't mind a good debate. None of us have the answers. Even going to 'official' sites don't always give us accurate information. And some of your points are well taken. But I'd like to address two of them.

    You said 1. Encourage vulnerable people to isolate as much as possible and mask-up as effectively as possible if going out. Allow such people to work from home where possible and support them with delivery services and such as we have been.

    We've been doing that for a year and a half now. Maybe it's time for those who choose not to be vaccinated to stay home and let the vaccinated be out without so many unprotected people running around allowing the virus an easy host - who will in turn infect more unprotected and some vaccinated as well. If I owned a business I would tell both employees and customers that while I respect their right to refuse a vaccination to please stay out of my business so that I can help protect those who have made the safer choice.

    Another point you mentioned, 5. Build up the ICU capacity to handle potential surges (in Canada, due to mismanagement of our dollars, ICUs chronically fill up every single flu season and nobody ever does anything about it).

    Great idea, but in our little town we don't have the money or the time. We need ICU beds NOW, yesterday really. We have 10 bays in our ER, usually that's plenty. But when we had to go there this past Wednesday 8 of the 10 had covid patients on ventilators waiting for an ICU bed, meaning waiting for someone to get well or die. The majority of the ER nurses were trying to make sure these patents stayed alive. That left two bays, and far fewer nurses, for those with kidney stones (my husband), or broken bones, or cuts or strokes or heart attacks or... My daughter's friend is a nurse there. At this moment in time all the ICU beds and the 8 on vents in the ER happened to be unvaccinated. We ended up waiting ELEVEN hours to be seen. God help them if there is a multi-car crash with five victims at the same time, or your Dad or granddad has a heart attack or stroke then. The truth is someone or several of those someone’s will simply die from lack of treatment.

    If everyone in our county had been vaccinated this wouldn't be happening. Yes, some with covid might have had to go to the hospital but most who have been vaccinated would not have that severe a case.

    SOMEones rights may have to be stepped on. After a year and a half I'm tired of being stepped on. How about the ones who choose not to be vaccinated get stepped on for a little while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome! And indeed.

      Your views are very valid, PK. There is no arguing with direct experience, and things could easily have gone much worse with Nick were he not such a stud.

      I am wondering, though, why measures were not taken to expand your ICU capacity? Was anything at all done in your small town in that regard? We're special arrangements made to deal with an almost certain influx of Covid patients? There has been plenty of time, and plenty of government money spent on other things. There seem to be plenty of vaccinated people in other countries having bad outcomes and requiring hospitalization, such as Israel who has been ahead of the curve on vaccinations.

      Arguably vaccinated are more of a risk to the unvaccinated. Vaccinated seem to get it and pass it on without much risk to themselves. Whereas if an unvaxed gets it from a vaxed they are at high risk, according to your own world view, no?

      Traditional medicine says if you are sick, quarantine. Not if you are healthy, quarantine. I think this whole thing has been a fiasco of doing exactly the opposite of previous effective practice, and it must end.

      And forcing the vax on folks who have had Covid and have recovered is just the ultimate ridiculousness.

      Delete
    2. Natural immunity against Covid as the result of a prior Covid infection is a critically important issue that the mainstream media is avoiding discussing at all costs because it wrecks their narrative that everyone needs to be vaccinated. A study out of Israel suggest natural immunity is much more powerful a defense than the defense that comes from getting a vaccine. Back around 2005, a study was conducted on people who had recovered from the 1918 Spanish flu. They were 91 to 100 years old at that point. They still had antibodies against the Spanish flu! After around 85 years!

      Delete
    3. Absolutely, and it's just common sense.

      Delete
  7. I must say that the replies to this post are not coming from a place of logic but from a place bordering on mob rule.

    Let me point out a few things to you folk who are answering out of anger and not really thinking about what you're saying. The first being that if Trump had pulled even half of the political stunts Biden has pulled in the past 7 months all of you taking pot shots here at Julie will be calling that man Hitler 2.0. but because this is coming from a Democrat somehow any kind of attack on personal Liberty and freedom has a green light.

    Now before anyone attempts to label me has a trump supporter or any other colorful title, I'm going to make it quite clear to the fact that I'm a Black Man who has been voting as a Democrat since I was 18 years old. Not by political choice or information but because that's what Black People are expected to do. And in those 36 years I have found the Democratic party very lacking and hypocritical in much of their policies especially the ones against my people.

    For those of you who are parroting Don Lemon's spiel regarding persecution of people who are not vaccinated, perhaps you forgotten the fact that those who are vaccinated are more of a threat to the unvaccinated due to the fact that while they are not affected by the virus they are still carriers. In short the vaccinated are more threat to the unvaccinated and not the other way around.

    That was demonstrated quite well at the beginning of Summer when Biden decides to declare it's all safe and those who are vaccinated went around in large numbers taking no precaution whatsoever and acting as if this pandemic was over. Despite historical facts that the last pandemic of 1918 lasted approximately 3 years plus or minus a month. Any other issues that arose during the summer that has caused you worry is not the fault of those who are not vaccinated. To quote from V for Vendetta, if you want to see the guilty you need only look into a mirror.

    What is going on here with Biden is an attempt to push policy based off the fear and paranoia generated by the media and that those people who wouldn't bother to consider doing their own research about this whole issue with the scientific Community that's not under the pocketbook of both the current government and the pharmaceutical companies. With the latter facing losses for those vaccines that are not used. You can tell when it happens when all of a sudden there's this mmass media blitz about surges of the virus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Loki, I agree that the brainwashing goes deep. People seem not to realize the extent to which they were brainwashed to "hate Trump", when objectively his Presidency was better than average (at least no new wars started and no civil rights curtailed under his watch). But this visceral hate people feel, that appears to have been programmed into them, I wonder why they are not questioning themselves more.

      Delete
  8. UThe real issue is….the vaccine shots should be administered in the hiney not the arm!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would sure get the spanko community double vaxed and monthly boosted! Combine that with the Chinese anal swab Covid test and rectal temps, and the spankos would have the lowest rates anywhere!

      Delete
    2. I remember doctor visits in the late 50s . It was total nudity, rectal temperatures, and shots in the hiney! I once had a medicine that had to be administered daily with a small rectal syringe, ahh the good old days!

      Delete
    3. To increase compliance still further, the patients' partners should be allowed to administer the vaccine shots if they so choose. My girlfriend would jump at the opportunity to bare my bottom in front of other women in a crowded medical center.
      Gordon

      Delete
  9. Your Doctor or other Medico (if you are lucky enough to have one0, offers his or her opinion, lose wieght. stop smoking, drink less. Epidimiology like many medical? opinions (non science since thay don't follow the scientific method.... look it up if you don't know)
    If you want to get a vaccine, get one !!! the 4 percent of people *(Canada) in two years) or the .02 % who have current cases or the 20 % of those who are in the hospital or the 20% in the ICU who are vulnerable appreciate you support.
    Sorry for dong Math.
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure I was following the whole reasoning, but I heartily agree that people who feel the vax protects them should by all means get it.

      Delete
  10. Trump went from media manufactured crisis (Russia Russia Russia) to media manufactured crisis (OMG the President went against the interagency consensus on Ukrainian policy!). Biden goes from the worst inflation seen here since the 1970s to getting Marines killed needlessly in Afghanistan to Coronavirus surges even greater than Trump's worst COVID weeks to tens of thousands of migrants camped under a bridge to a massive labor shortage to his Pentagon essentially admitting to a war crime. Trump wasn't perfect, but he was a lot better than the shitshow we've been treated to the last 9 months. But thank goodness there are no more mean tweets! That was what was truly important!

    The Fauci-ites refusal to even consider the effects of natural immunity tells me that not one single bit of all of this is about health or science. It is solely about control.

    "We are in desperate need of nurses! Better fire those nurses who've already gotten COVID and so don't really want or need to get the shot!" Utter lunacy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joe2 here,

    You have presented a very logical argument. Thank you.

    I am vaccinated, but freedom of choice has a lot of value. To paraphrase a well-known quote, “Those that are willing to trade freedom for security will get neither.”

    If the disease is as infectious as we are led to believe and if the mRNA vaccine only reduces the chance of infection and reduces the symptoms/increases the survival rate, then we all are going to get infected. So, let’s get on with it.

    Prior to the rollout of the vaccination, I had my annual physical. I asked my doctor, “If I get COVID, what will you prescribe?” His answer was, “Nothing.” My reply was, “What other disease is there that you will prescribe “Nothing” if I catch it. His was reply was, “Nothing.” Let that sink in.

    Lastly, in 1968/69, the Hong Kong flu hit the United States. It was just as infectious as COVID and almost as deadly. You know what the world did- nothing. Oh yeah, Woodstock was held during the Hong Kong flu pandemic.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I’m pro vaccine and pro freedom.

    When it comes to public institutions and places, it gets complicated to balance the two mainly because I believe that unvaccinated people threaten the health of others,

    But if you want to come to my house or my place of business, I’m not going to let you in if you’re unvaccinated. - though I’m taking your word for it.

    Rosco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's way less true (that unvaxed threaten the vaxed more than vaxed do) for this particular vaccine, as we are told the vaxed transmit. In fact, the unvaxed place themselves at greater risk.

      I think your level of fear with regards to this disease, and your level of confidence that the vax in others better protects you is an unhealthy level of paranoid fear.

      Delete
    2. I hear this a lot -- "if you are not vaccinated, you are endangering me and my family." What a bunch of BS. But if you've been vaccinated, you're protected, right?" Of course you are. Not completely, that's true, not 100 percent but probably 90 percent or so. So you are protected 90 percent against a disease that more than 99.56 percent of Americans have survived. And you (I don't mean you, Julie, I mean the person who is worried about the unvaccinated infecting them) are fearful of that? What kind of a coward are you? Grow a spine, asshole, and recognize that life is full of dangers and there are no guarantees. Show a little courage for once. Stop being afraid of your own shadow.

      Delete
    3. Of course the unvaccinated are putting themselves at greater risk. That’s their right, I suppose.

      They are also increasing risks for everybody, however, both by helping to keep the virus around overall and by being more likely to transmit it at any particular encounter.

      I didn’t state my “level of paranoid fear” correctly - what I meant is that I believe it’s in my rights to determine who comes into my home or place of business. Irene have lived our lives far more normally over the last 18 months than most, albeit we’ve tried to respect the concerns of those around us.

      We are hosting a large outdoor social event next month - 100 plus people. I didn’t exactly know how I wanted to address virus concerns, but I put on the invitation that “unvaccinated people are asked to wear a mask,”

      By the way, there are two physicians in my close family - one of whom has been on the front lines and has seen many people die from Covid.

      Rosco

      Delete
    4. Anony1: as you imply, everything is a balance of probability, and a balance of risks. Agreement is by no means even 90% that the vax should be forced on everybody, and so it's very, very dangerous to take that step.

      Rosco: in your opinion that's true. Others disagree with you. They think being young and healthy and taking supplements is a less risky way of achieving the same result, yet you want to force a vax they reasonably believe they don't need, which has risk, and unknown long-term risk?

      Your argument re home I'm more comfortable with. Your place of business? Not so much, even if you are an owner of it. During the height of the HIV scare when I understood folks thought or was a gay only thing and you could get it from a toilet seat, would you have banned gays "just in case"? Your banning healthy people, or recovered people, feels the same.

      Delete
    5. Oh, and Rosco, I have two practicing Ph. D. virologists and an ER doc in my circle, and all three agree more with my take (it's one reason I put it out there). I don't say that to bolster my argument, it stands in its own just to counter your argument that you know docs who seem to agree with you.

      Delete
    6. Julie,

      Yes, being young (not a choice) and healthy (yes a choice ) are important - perhaps more so than the vaccine. Agreed, but that does not mean the vaccine is unimportant.

      It’s interesting how this vaccine has become so political when most of us (at least people I know) have received so many vaccinations during our lifetime. I wish both Biden and Trump were less divisive on the issue - it drives me crazy.

      Nothing is risk free, but I do believe the vaccine provides immense net benefits and wish people would take it enthusiastically as I did. And I regret that some people don’t take it for political rather than scientific reasons (yes I suppose you could argue some people do the reverse).

      The freedom vs public good divide is often challenging for us - guns, abortion, drugs, infectious diseases, etc. Conservatives and Liberals don’t always fall into the logical camps it seems. I’ll assert that in each of these areas it’s important to find the right balance and look hard at the merits.

      Rosco

      Delete
    7. It's a worry that kids nowadays are supposed to take >80 vaccines before 18. When you were a kid it was probably what, 10? If you don't see the profit motive of big Pharma, you don't have your eyes open.

      Delete
    8. Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Everything - they all have profit motives.

      Just because you don’t like mandates doesn’t mean vaccines aren’t protective. I don’t know if you are part of this group, Julie, but it seems clear many people avoid the vaccine because they don’t like Joe Biden - a very poor reason.

      In so many places the unvaccinated are the ones far more likely to get sick and especially very sick or die.

      I’m happily vaccinated and hope to get a booster soon. The data support it - independent of politics and capitalism.

      Linus Pauling came to our place by happenstance in the early 1990s - the most impressive of anybody I ever met - more so than two California Governors and one US President.

      Best,

      Rosco

      Delete
    9. It's a logical fallacy to say that some people believe thing X for a stupid reason, therefore thing X must be wrong and anybody who believes in it must be equally stupid. I gave my reasons above, Rosco, why would you say such a thing?

      The point of a profit motive is so when you see someone advocating for something so strongly, and in many cases against common sense, it helps you to understand why and to tune up your skepticism, like when a cold caller is trying to sell you a timeshare.

      And you seem to entirely miss the nuance of my argument. I am pro Covid vaccine for many. I can see arguments against for some (the previously infected, the young and healthy). I am against universal coercion, especially as it is not protective of the vaccinated (see the new video clip I just added to the end of my post - he explains it better than I)

      Delete
    10. Ok, apologies for suggesting you may be making your decision based on politics and not science - I do believe many are.

      I believe my skepticism is well tuned. It drives Irene crazy when she reads the news to me and I tell her something doesn’t sound right and ask chalking questions.

      A few jurisdictions have posted the simple comparative data illustrating the vaccine’s effectiveness - I wish more would. But see what Shasta County’s data say


      https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=x-raw-image%3A%2F%2F%2F3becc9012987557c6fbdb349c4cbfa76440857ac04c2caa46b1fbc6b7be756b8&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.co.shasta.ca.us%2Fready%2Fcovid-19%2Fnews%2Fpage%2F18&tbnid=fFWHKQHJ7DsXjM&vet=12ahUKEwiN0Zqc243zAhUWr54KHcMvCVQQMygMegUIARCSAQ..i&docid=JNspm-RDlE58TM&w=451&h=269&itg=1&q=shasta%20county%20covid&hl=en-us&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwiN0Zqc243zAhUWr54KHcMvCVQQMygMegUIARCSAQ

      Rosco

      Delete
    11. I am not against the vaccine. I am specifically against forcing people against their wills to take the vaccine. They have the right to, and it does not significantly endanger the vaccinated (there is always some danger, of course, like I don't ban other people from driving because they might hit me).

      I still believe that the data shows that those who have previously contracted COVID are better protected than even the vaccinated, so certainly don't force it on them. I also believe that if you are young and healthy and taking your supplements you are at minimal risk from Covid, and I'm fine with them making their own judgement call re how much they trust the vax.

      Delete
  13. As long as you don't interact with the public, it's fine for you to not get the vaccine. The moment you're coming anywhere close to me, then you need to be vaccinated. I don't want you in my work space, restaurant, or even at a sports event, unless you've been vaccinated. And, if someone needs to verify that you've been vaccinated to be there, that's okay with me.

    But here's a question: Since about 3 billion people have been vaccinated and it's obvious that they aren't the ones dying or going to the hospital from covid, and that they aren't being killed or seriously hurt by the vaccines, why would anyone with a sound mind not get vaccinated as soon as they can? It's not experimental any more. We can see from the numbers that it's safe and effective.

    Getting covid is not. I regularly see reports of people who posted repeatedly on Facebook about how the virus is a myth or it's just like a bad flu or the vaccines are experimental or freedom, freedom, freedom, or whatever, followed by sad stories about how they've died, leaving kids behind. There are like 120,000 orphans in the U.S. now from parents who died from covid.

    We are fortunate to have freedom in the U.S. and Canada, but it's time to pay for that freedom by taking responsibility. If literally everyone took responsibility for themselves in this, we wouldn't need covid passports because literally everyone who could biologically get vaccinated would be vaccinated. This is only a point of discussion because so many people think they can flaunt the laws of nature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You live in an information "bubble". If you open your mind and start listening to other points of view, you would not be as sure as you seem to be. Your level of belief in the official narrative borders on a sort of religious faith. A solid minority of people are not nearly as confident. You should check yourself.

      Delete
  14. Bravo Ms Julie....I was vaccinated along with my wife....shortly after she developed shingles....coincidence or side effect...who knows?
    I am of the opinion that we should opt for freedom above all else....if you don't want it then don't get it....I don't buy the whole "you're endangering me" argument....
    Life is full of risks....
    Every year the flu kills tens of thousands of people...
    Every time you get into an automobile there is a significant chance that it will be the last thing you do....
    Remember Malaria....kills lots of people every year...
    Cancer....Heart disease....yep they're still very busily killing millions of people...
    I remember reading a sci-fi story....I think it was by Vonnegut but I could be wrong....of a man denied medical treatment because he had once been a smoker....
    So the new call is to deny services to the unvaxed....then all of you drinkers, smokers, overweight people should just forget getting treatment too....
    The vaccine was rolled out and touted as the tool that will end the pandemic....it turns out that it's not...
    When I was a child I got vaccinated against polio and have never had to worry about it since then....this vaccine isn't nearly as effective....
    Anyways....I'm rambling here....putting something in your body isn't anybody's business but your own...
    I made my decision....you make yours....
    I threw my stupid mask away....follow the science....10% effective at best....
    I go out and live.....
    I accept the risk....
    Honestly....do these people think we're going to get to 0 Covid within our lifetime?
    I like fantasy too!!!!
    Kisses
    Kaaren

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are looking at the risks in a reasonable way: comparing them to other risks we take routinely. Because of all the government and media fear mongering (fear sells, and fear motivates voters and motivates enlarged government), most do not compare this rationally, and have developed an utterly irrational fear. Apparently, in a poll, Democrats believe that if you get Covid your chance of hospitalization is 50%. It's about 2%, and much, much lower if you are healthy.

      Delete
  15. Your choice, bottom line, but when those who don't get vaccinated and then get Covid don't tell others to get the shot, your a hypocrite and who cares what you say. This has gone on long enough, do what is right for you, not others, and lets get living life again. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you also hypocritical if you are vaccinated, wind up in hospital with Covid, and don't tell everybody it's not worth it? Single anecdotes, even a bunch of them, don't make a choice right or wrong, you can always find examples where doing the right thing wound up in a bad outcome.

      Delete
    2. I've been reading the comments and your replies with interest. How do you account for the fact that way over 90% of the COVID hospital beds are occupied by unvaxed people? Coincidence?

      I like personal freedom.I also like living. We agree that nothing is 100% effective in preventing spread other than isolation. However, the evidence is clear that vaccination saves lives; no, not every life, but the vast majority.

      If natural immunity effectively suppressed spread of the disease, we wouldn't have the current crisis. Yes, it exists, but it isn't sufficient.

      Since nothing but death is absolute, there will always be people, some with good educations, who fight against the evidence. I don't doubt your sincerity. I respectfully suggest that over 600,000 dead Americans represents a convincing argument that we do whatever we can to save lives. By the way, the Spanish flu of 1919 killed 660,000 Americans.

      There are a lot more of us now. We have much better tools to manage and prevent disease. If you don't want to get the vaccine, I agree it is your choice. However, the rest of us have the right to keep you away from us to protect our health. As you correctly point out, the vaccine isn't perfect. It's 95% better than not getting it. Please stay home to protect yourself, me, and our children.

      Delete
    3. I also support and advocate the vaccine in the case of those who have not had Covid and are older and have comorbidities.

      I do not buy that the asymptomatic unvaxed put you at any sort of great risk that if you are vaxed in the case of Delta. That's the fear talking, not level-headed statistics.

      Delete
  16. Note that we are already into a "soft" form of vaccine passports. I'm going to a conference where I have to show either proof of vaccination or proof of a negative Covid test taken within 5 days of the conference start. I think it's ridiculous (if you are vaccinated, you are protected, so what are you worrying about?), but not too burdensome. What is much more burdensome are the vaccine mandates for, say, colleges, where it's either get the vaccine or get tested EVERY SINGLE WEEK. I'm tired of my liberties being taken away by all these little Hitlers who promulgate these rules. Resist. Disobey the tyrants. Take them to court. If all else fails, remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with most of what you say but not with proactive violence. Mind you, if the government totally removes your ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness over fear mongering politics, I am certainly more receptive.

      Delete
  17. I’m pro vaccine, but anti mandate if for no other reason than forcing people to do shit they don’t want to never works out. We need to educate on the benefits of the vaccine and continue to enforce mask wearing in public when the virus is ripping through the community. People will start to recognize that it’s predominantly the unvaccinated that die from it and logic will play out in the end. But the mandate immediately makes people resist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you mostly, but I'm not a one size fits all pro Covid vaccine. It's situational. Young and healthy are at such minimal risk I don't deign to pretend to advise them on what's best for them.

      Delete
    2. So why not listen to the healthcare professionals who want them to get vaccinated along with everyone else?

      Delete
    3. There are also many dissenting docs on that subject. Whom to listen to? You need to do your own research and judge who is most credible. I don't think we should abdicate our choice to whomever the government and Big Tech / Big Media is pushing.

      Delete
  18. As a C-19 survivor I see it this way,
    The vaccine will not stop me getting it again, but hopefully it will mitigate my symptoms down to something not needing 2 weeks in hospital. I respect people who do not get the vaccine if they do it for informed personal reasons and not because of some halfbaked reason like - “it’s got 5G in it” or “ the government will use it to track us” and also please don’t compl add in if you do get it and then need ICU or worse. As far as vaccine passports go - if that’s what we need to make nations open up travel s as me trade again then I am more than happy to carry one.
    I do not full understand politics on my side of the Atlantic let alone Canada and USA, but I have had the 2 x vaccine, I will have the booster and I will carry a Vax passport if needed. What other folk do is their choice and I respect your views (with the caveat above)
    Stay safe
    FM

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having had C19, you are much safer than any vaxed.
      I find it distressing that you are so willing to sacrifice your freedoms for reasons you don't even agree with.

      Delete
  19. Nothing more dangerous than a dumb person who thinks they're smart

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks, Julie, for a well reasoned presentation. I am bothered by one small word :the.At last count there were some 200 Covid 19 vaccines being produced worldwide. The basic division seems that between traditionak inert vaccines and expermental, cutting edge mRNA vaccines.For certification vac passpirt purposes, only the national or supranational champions are accepted.Korea ,for example, produced Sputnik V for export to Russia but doesnt recognize it as acceptable for proof.Nor should we ignore the huge amounts of money in play here with cost of third and subsequent booster shots rising rapidly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The profit motive from Big Pharma is obvious for those with eyes to see it.

      Delete
    2. So what? Are you saying you'd change your opinion if "big pharma" didn't profit? How is their profit motive material? Does it change the fact that the vaccines greatly reduce risk? Nope. Nor is their "motive" an excuse to promote unproven treatments like IVM or HCQ instead.

      Delete
    3. I'm saying, don't be naive. Where vast quantities of money is involved, misinformation and exaggeration go hand in hand.

      Delete
    4. I'm not naive. It is simply that the fact there is profit motive is zero evidence of your position. Moreover, it is not different from those who promote your position. There's plenty of profit motive for those promote alternative cures, their own social media brand, their professional careers or their TV shows. Seems you only worry about profit when its a position you disagree with.

      Delete
    5. It's not proof of anything. It's common sense to be more skeptical where there is a big profit motive.

      Delete
  21. I don't understand the problem with the vaccine passports. If you think they're seriously encroaching on your freedom then you fundamentally overestimate how much freedom you have. You were born in a society and chose to remain there, so now you have the same two freedoms you always did: the freedom to obey the rules, or the freedom to starve.

    COVID-19 has killed over four and a half million people at a pretty steady rate over the last eighteen months, of course it's going to be an inconvenience for the foreseeable future.

    You live in a "system where your access to all sorts of things is curtailed by the government's somewhat arbitrary and hard to appeal notion of whether you are a "good citizen", in their eyes, or not," hence prisons, or asylums.

    Why is this the one issue everyone things they get to be John Wayne on? Get the vaccine, stay at home when you can, wear a mask when you can't. It's not that big of a deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a big erosion of freedoms, unprecedented step, People question the risk reward, which you don't seem to acknowledge.

      Delete
    2. People question whether the vaccine is making their skin magnetic, or whether the Earth is flat. No, I don't acknowledge or understand what the supposed risk/reward is.

      Businesses have always had the right to deny service, countries have always had the right to deny access. What's unprecedented is the coronavirus. If you choose not to get vaccinated then I get why a business owner wouldn't want you in their store.

      Let's talk about the people with the most freedom: the super rich. They're getting vaccinated, checked, and staying the hell away from anyone that isn't.

      You've been vaccinated, are you planning to boycott stores and events that require Vax passports? Would you quit your job if they asked to see one?

      There's no doubt that big business, especially pharma, will find ways to profit from the pandemic. The very richest have done very well from it. New bullshit rules will be brought in, just like the airlines used 9/11 to stop you bringing your own beverages on flights and charging you for baggage. Capitalism sucks like that. But I don't see how scaremongering is going to help.

      Delete
    3. It's a logical fallacy to say that some people believe thing X for a stupid reason, therefore thing X must be wrong and anybody who believes in it must be equally stupid.

      There is a risk of known side effects from the vax, and a risk of longer term side effects we do not know about yet as it is the first time any remotely similar vaccine has been used on people. There is a risk of ADE (Antibody-Dependent Enhancement - Google it). All these risks are small IMO.

      Against these risks are the benefits of the vaccine, namely that they seem to make you less ill if you contract Covid.

      If the benefit for you is small, as is the case with the previously infected or the young and healthy, there is a serious question of risk versus reward. (I feel like a kindergarten teacher needing to explain this!)

      Businesses have never had the right to enquire into your private health information. Do they have the right to ask if you are HIV-positive? Do you think it is ok if we gave them that right?

      If Big Pharma is making a shit Tom of $$$$ from vaccines, maybe it's a reason to be at least a little skeptical of what they are selling?

      No I do not plan on protests that harm my well being. I will blog about it, donate to and vote for political parties accordingly, and speak up about it.

      Delete
    4. Your local donut shop doesn't ask if you're HIV positive because it's not transmitted through the air. Your local blood bank does. If I ran a car wash HIV would not be a concern. If I ran a brothel it would be.

      A restaurant would absolutely refuse to seat me if I was sporting open wounds, oozing pus from buboes, coughing up phlegm etc. A business owner has a responsibility to their staff. If I owned a restaurant I'd be concerned about opening up whilst the pandemic is still happening and risking the health of my employees.

      Vaccines become more effective as a higher percentage of society take them. If you're going to calculate what you think your own personal risk/reward is for getting it then you're undermining everyone else's efforts and putting those around you in harm's way.

      Maybe my view is clouded as I benefit from the NHS, whilst I understand that the American health scare system is a Kafkaesque nightmare. Yesterday I was offered a flu shot. I didn't ask who made it, worry about who might be profiting, enquire about the effectiveness... I just took the thing. I suspect you would have too.

      Delete
    5. No, I don't take the flu shot. I tend to never get sick, except the flu shot made me sick for a day the one time I tried it. I have taken other vaccines where I have assessed the cost-benefit.

      This Covid vaccine appears not to be effective at stopping the spread, unfortunately, which therefore weighs against it.

      Delete
    6. Not effective when compared to what? It would certainly be more effective if everyone got it. I don't understand why you're buying in to the scaremongering, especially seeing you are vaccinated!

      Fair enough you don't take the flu shot, but I guess I meant I'm assuming you don't worry about medicine in general when it's prescribed to you; I'm guessing you're just glad to get it.

      I know you take pride in your good health and your banging' bod, and that you supplement your diet with vitamins and minerals. I wonder how you decided on which ones to take? Not looking to "gotcha" you or criticise or whatever, this anti-passport thing just seems at odds to your usual health-conscious outlook and I don't really get it!

      Delete
    7. Looking at data in the most vaccinated countries in the world and the Delta continues to spread. The research is showing vaccinated are spreading it.

      And absolutely I worry about every medicine that's prescribed to me. I always do my own research and have lengthy chats with the Doc.

      I try to minimize drugs. Supplements I take are based on research I've read. Vitamin D, C, B12, Zinc, Quercetin, Omega 3 fatty acids, Calcium.

      Delete
    8. You must rattle nearly as bad as I do! Obviously I can't argue with results, like I said, no-one's disputing that your body be bangin'! But that seems a lot given your diet and exercise!

      I guess when you get right down to it the question is would you rather live in a society where virtually everyone is vaccinated or would you rather live in one where a random factor is introduced that reduces t the number of vaccinated citizens, and I just don't get why you'd choose the latter!

      Delete
    9. For the reasons given above.

      Delete
  22. There are many mandatory vaccines (usually given at a certain time after birth for infants and young children) though, and while it's true that those vaccines were the subject of some fierce conspiracy theories of the past (dubbed the anti-vaxxers movement), nothing compares to the new "mass hysteria" regarding this particular Covid vaccines.

    It can't be overlooked that this has become a "political dividing issue" with the ensuing mentality of "let's defend OUR position against THEIRS".

    But is it really? Since Trump was already mentioned here, I think I'm not causing unnecessary deviation of the main topic by noting that he called for people to get vaccinated last month. I'd imagine his call for any other cause -- even if not "mandatory" -- would see many, if not all, of his supporters agreeing to its sensibility and rationality - not on this one though! And one has to ask: Why would a charismatic leader, truly loved by his supporters, get overwhelmingly ignored on this one particular issue of public health safety?

    On the topic of mandatory vaccinations or vaccine passports, my stance was often to let people do what they want, and let it escalate to whatever point beyond that. You, unvaxxers, don't want to take the vaccine? don't. You, vaxxers, don't want to live where unvaccinated people walk around without taking precautions? don't. This ends up in a segregation-like camps for the unvaccinated? tough luck!

    I think humanity is heading to that direction anyway. Like a scientific/technological-based 'The Time Machine' by H. G. Wells - if it's not about vaccines, then about the anticipated longevity research, or the arrival of AGI, humans will segregate willingly sooner or later. Acting like the big brother government to force people to do "what's good for them" won't work, regardless of being the moral or immoral thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your problem is you lump all vaccinations into the same category. They are truly not.

      Delete
  23. Please, will you spank your husband and write about that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, when the mood strikes me. For now my mood is to educate the panicked and fearful.

      Delete
  24. your last paragraph demonstrates exacty why mandates are needed.

    We did not need mandates to encourage people to get the polio vaccine because there was no right wing fog machine floodong the internet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, Ben Shapiro's message? It is rabidly PRO vaccine!

      As to the polio vaccine, there were many, many who contracted polio from the vaccine (about 40,000) until they got it right, and it was all covered up at the time. I'd rather have information from different points of view, thank you very much.

      You are free to keep getting it from a single source.

      Delete
    2. Are you talking about the Cutter vaccine from the mid-50s? IIRC that resulted in something like 50 getting paralyzed and only very few dying and the numbers continued downwards until they reached zero, where they have remained. The years prior to that had thousands of deaths and thousands more paralyzed. So it's not really not a great comparison to today's vaccines unless you really think medicine has not progressed at all since then. BTW you're not old enough to remember kids with polio callipers but many of us still do.

      Delete
    3. fog on baby, fog on!

      Delete
    4. Yup. Did you think the Doctors knew the vaccine would cause polio in 40,000 kids? How would you have felt as a parent if they mandated your kid to take it? Chilling. Maybe they should have run better and longer term trials. The medical establishment is not without its errors, even today, and especially when mixed in with a profit motive (see Opioid over-prescription).

      Delete
    5. When you assume that I get information from a single source, you display your ignorance. Somehow, the FDA, the CDC, John Hopkins, Columbia Presbyterian, the AMA are a single source. Yet every person on YouTube, Facebook or some Podcaster, no matter how much they feed off each other, constitutes a separate source. Nonsense.

      Delete
    6. I think you proved the opposite of your point. In 1952 the US had 58,000 cases of polio. If what you say is accurate, a policy that the resulted in 40,000 total cases but eliminated the disease forever is an awesome tradeoff. In that case the math is simple - use the vaccine and suffer roughly the same number of cases for that year and stop the disease or reject the vaccine and continue to have 40,000+ cases per year.

      Delete
    7. Ha ha! Those are all a single source, a single point of view. Seek a different point of view and bring an open mind.

      Or... maybe the point is don't rush a vaccine out? Take the time to properly evaluate the risks and if safe, roll it out.

      Delete
    8. maybe you should listen to people who have studied this: actual doctors

      you youtube "researchers" will be the death of so many

      Delete
    9. "Did you think the Doctors knew the vaccine would cause polio in 40,000 kids?" No of course they didn't. That's why they stopped all vaccinations until they worked out what had gone wrong. And you know what when they did that? People trusted that the scientists were smarter than them, had fixed the issue, and went right back to vaccinating their kids. Because the Cutter incident was one of production, not science. And it's not exactly true that it caused polio in 40,00 kids, but I am sure you know that. It mostly caused the lesser form of polio, abortive poliomyelitis, which doesn't leave you paralyzed or dead and you actually completely recover from.

      Don't forget, even with this incident parents still lined up round the block to have their children take the vaccine. Why? Because they feared the disease far more than any potential side effects. From the height of the panic to the successful development and implementation of the vaccine was a relatively short span - couple of years really. But for you - too soon right?

      Fortunately people trusted the science back then and they did what was necessary with the result polio is no longer an issue. If it happened today who knows what the outcome would be if an infectious disease suddenly came into our lives.

      Oh wait. We know exactly what the outcome would be. Millions dead, hundreds of millions infected and only 30% vaccinated.

      Like it or not, vaccines work. But carry on taking livestock medicine by all means.

      Lastly, enough with the 'whataboutism'. You use it a lot and it's beneath you.

      Delete
    10. You're referring to Ivermectin as "livestock medecine"?

      "Discovered in the late-1970s, the pioneering drug ivermectin, a dihydro derivative of avermectin—originating solely from a single microorganism isolated at the Kitasato Intitute, Tokyo, Japan from Japanese soil—has had an immeasurably beneficial impact in improving the lives and welfare of billions of people throughout the world. Originally introduced as a veterinary drug, it kills a wide range of internal and external parasites in commercial livestock and companion animals. It was quickly discovered to be ideal in combating two of the world’s most devastating and disfiguring diseases which have plagued the world’s poor throughout the tropics for centuries. It is now being used free-of-charge as the sole tool in campaigns to eliminate both diseases globally. It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found."
      (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/)

      The discoverer won a Nobel prize.

      You have identified yourself as someone not to be taken seriously. A propagandist and a shill. Begone.

      Delete
    11. Winning a Nobel Prize for treating parasites has exactly zero relevance to its value as a COVID treatment.

      Delete
    12. "It has also been used to successfully overcome several other human diseases and new uses for it are continually being found."

      "The findings of the study reveal that ivermectin modulates the immune response in animal models infected with SARS-CoV-2, lessening inflammation in the respiratory tract. This immunomodulatory effect helps reduce the emergence of symptoms of the disease."
      https://www.pasteur.fr/en/ivermectin-alleviates-covid-19-symptoms-animal-model

      There have been multiple clinical tests on humans as well. A metastudy concludes "Conclusions: Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are pos- sible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally."
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/pdf/ajt-28-e434.pdf

      You seem like a very close-minded person, ANN.

      I'm not saying it for sure works. I'm not saying it for sure does not work. Given it is proven safe in humans, it's a good risk-reward bet if you get Covid.

      You, however, seem absolutely positive that it 100% does not work, is dangerous to humans, and only prescribed to horses?

      Who's being more reasonable here, ANN?

      Delete
    13. It interesting to see how often in these posts you accuse others of being closed minded or brain washed or unreasonable when you are doing the same thing as them - advocating for your position.

      Please, reread anything I wrote here and see if I once mentioned horses or danger to humans. I didn't. Feel to free to quote me you disagree. You are arguing wha you wish I said, or what others may have said, but not what I said.

      So I will be clear. I am confident the existing IVM research does not prove efficacy. Is it possible future research might? Sure. One cannot exclude the possibility that new research will find something. But the current state of the field is pretty clear on the lack of effectiveness.

      Thanks for sharing the Bryant meta. It is a good example of why the IVM myth continues. Studies get released. Positive ones get picked up by IVM supporters and shared around. But then studies get examined and, like Bryant, shown to be flawed. Sadly, that part gets ignored by the pro-IVM crowd and the myth continues.

      The Bryant meta has multiple significant flaws that impact the studies included and how they were analyzed. Once corrected the study shows no benefit. The same has been true of pretty much every study finding positive benefits. Some have been so fradulent they have been retracted (Elgazzar). Others have impossible data values (range, SD, min and max don't match). Others produce impossible results (cochrans d over 2).

      The Elgazzar study is really interesting because, if you look at your link you'll see it is included in the Bryant meta. It is, in fact, a major driver of the positive results Bryant shows because of its size. However, that study was retracted which means the Bryant meta, even if everything else was fine (which is not the case) would still be wrong (or at least out of date) just because it included a study that is no longer valid. Once excluded, Bryant's results change.

      The sad part is that this kind of information does not make it around the pro-IVM internet so the myth continues.

      But you argue it does not really matter if it works, its still a good bet. You seem to be arguing that since it is proven safe to take then its worth trying just in case as it won't do any harm. But that's not true. The push for IVM (or HCQ or Zinc or vitamins or Zantac) results in people delaying or avoiding actually effective treatment. The drug itself may be harmless but defering treatment in favor of these others unproven drugs is not. And we see exactly that happening. Plus, it is possible that an otherwise safe drug, such as IVM, can be harmful in the wrong doses. We see that too, with large numbers of IVM poisonings. Or, in the case of HCQ, a safe drug can be harmful for people with certain conditions. That's why those are not sold over the counter. So, no, IVM is not a 'good-bet' when it causes people to engage in riskier behavior or avoid effective treatments.

      Delete
    14. You joined a thread where the guy you are supporting claimed it was "livestock medicine" and you did not push back, but piled on, so own it.

      And your debunk is itself debunked and on they go, on increasingly esoteric meta-analysis basis with judgment calls abounding as "science". As I said before I don't know if it works or not, but if I get Covid, I'd like the opportunity to Joe Rogan it and throw the kitchen sink (whatever is safe, of course) at it.

      If you think the fact that some idiot, somewhere, poisoned themselves by taking excessive IVM sways me, it does not. My body, my choice. Screw your Nanny state, you and the people you gullibly believe are the last people I want governing my personal health choices.

      Delete
    15. Thank you for the very thoughtful and articulate response.

      Delete
    16. And there's this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/20/ivermectin-shortage-horse-owners-covid?fbclid=IwAR2GDDxjH2EYZevfSdpPHg5DCi1FJ_K-kWT5lnnMNh4WhAECsDPSuTOzDvk

      Must be a lot of idiots, somewhere.

      Delete
    17. Hmmm. First of all, from an utter political rag. Secondly, if Ivermectin was not prohibited for Doctors to prescribe, or unavailable OTC, maybe that would not happen?

      Delete
  25. I had always thought that one of the redeeming aspects of occupying oneself with themes and stories of power-exchange games like spanking and bdsm etc. was that it would heighten our awareness of power dynamics in wider social settings. Seems to have worked for you, Julie, but for many of your readers, not so much. I think this episode around CV-19 and the power plays around it are a prime example of how power is wielded in our society, and it behoves us to pay attention and make an effort to understand how this all works, through propaganda and so forth. Kudos to you for doing your bit to help spread awareness. - Frank

    ReplyDelete
  26. Let me see. So I who am vaccinated need to be protected from the unvaccinated people who did not get the vaccine to protect them but I who got it to protect me now find that I need to be protected from the unvaccinated who are in danger from? Ok so let me get this right. I wear a mask to protect you the vaccinated from me the vaccinated from getting the virus? or from giving the virus? Well actually I dont wear a mask because you see I got vaccinated to protect me from the unvaxed but now... hold on I am confused. (Julie you hit it out of the park this time...go girl)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. None of it makes sense. It's all fear based propaganda now.

      Delete
  27. You said: "There is also good indication (that coincides with all previous experience and expectation) that people who have had Covid and recovered from it have better immunity than vaccinated people."
    COMPLETELY FALSE! I have two relatives who had/survived Covid. After five months had passed, they were eligible for the vaccine. Both were tested for covid antibodies. They're antibodies were just 5% of the average vaccinated person within the same timeframe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Antibodies are not a good measure. Your T cells manufacture antibodies when the virus is present. It's T cell response you want to measure.

      The science is with me strongly on this one. There was a recent paper in The Lancet that reported how much better natural immunity was than vaccines.

      Delete
  28. i am saddened that this is even still a thing.

    our children were not allowed to attend school without proof of their vaccinations.

    i was not allowed to attend school without proof of my vaccinations.

    my parents were not allowed to attend school without proof of their vaccinations.

    what suddenly makes this one horrible disease (which has killed more than a few friends of mine) magically exempt from requiring vaccination?

    i keep looking for rational explanations of this strange phenomenon, and i keep failing to find any.

    the three vaccines approved for use in the USA are all extremely safe, and all extremely effective. we have gifted too many lives lost to those who would turn this into some sort of extremist hill upon which to sacrifice our families, our economy, and our true freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be disengenious. What previous vaccine mandate prevented adults from having a job and participating in society?

      For kids specifically, since Covid does not at all appear to be a paediatric disease (less so than the flu for that group), a mandate for kids is not justified in this particular case either.

      Delete
    2. "Don't be disengenious. What previous vaccine mandate prevented adults from having a job and participating in society?"

      Health care workers. Teachers. Police officers. Military. There are many, many jobs that require vaccinations. George Washington started the practice, when he forced his soldiers to be vaccinated for smallpox. In the USA, an employer can fire you if you refuse to be vaccinated; that is one of the benefits of the so-called "right to work" laws that the Republicans have passed in 49 states.

      My job was none of the above, and I was still required to be vaccinated. (My job involves travel.)

      I am not being disingenuous. I am also not suggesting that you are being disingenuous; most people who hold your beliefs have been fed a steady diet of misinformation by self-proclaimed news sources (e.g. the "Fox News" entertainment channel) and their well-meaning yet Idiocracy-inspired friends (e.g. Facebook).

      "For kids specifically, since Covid does not at all appear to be a paediatric disease (less so than the flu for that group), a mandate for kids is not justified in this particular case either."

      I'm not going to argue the intricate details of health policy. I'm not an expert. Neither are you. If health experts decided that kids don't need to be vaccinated, then I would likely trust them, even knowing that they may eventually be proven wrong. It's not that they're never wrong; it's that one would be an idiot to assume that the experts are always wrong.

      I wish that people would stop pretending to be experts on things that they are not, and respect those who have spent their lives working for the public good, and working to become experts in these fields. Our public servants do make mistakes, but even their mistakes are almost always far superior to the random idiotic nonsense and drivel that people peddle on Facebook and Fox News.

      Delete
    3. It's like the twilight zone arguing that the vax pass is quite routine and is done all the time. That's a moronic take.

      It's not "intricate details", it's straightforward counting, and many Doctors agree with me on pushing back against vax for kids. If you don't know that, you are not well informed.

      Delete
    4. I respect the enormous contributions that you have made to joyful living, through your blog, and I would want to always view your person with that in mind.

      That is precisely why this topic, and your position on it, are so difficult to reconcile.

      Thank you for the willingness to converse. I wish that we could -- each and every one of us -- take an enormous step backwards and see the raw truth as it truly is, but that truth will only be available with the passage of time, when our children will read books about how silly their parents were to fall into such ridiculously obvious traps. At this point, I would settle for the Cliff Notes.

      Delete
    5. Nice disengage (seriously!).
      A good model for when things get heated, take a step back, take a breath, and then dive back in refreshed. Appreciate it true42.

      Delete
  29. Hopefully this is Justin Trudeaus last day as Prime Minister, at least until Canadians are stupid enough to elect his son twenty years from now. Maybe future Trudeau will legalize Cocaine to get the kids votes.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Biden regime says "lookie over here! Covid! vaccine!  masks!  Pay no attention to our citizens abandoned and  trapped in Afghanistan,  the disaster at our southern border, escalating crime in our cities, our economy going down the toilet....."   
    I think Americans can and do multitask though. 
    Next upcoming distraction:  climate change.
    vic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely, the Dems are politicking with it, big time.

      Delete
  31. This “vaccine” is not like any other anyone has ever taken. It makes permanent changes to you. You cannot undo it. Long term effects where never tested. I suspect as more becomes known, many who have taken it will regret it. There is some truth coming out, despite social media’s best efforts. Project Veritas has started releasing videos tonight. The first has already been deleted by Instagram and Facebook. But like a beach ball being held under water, the truth is eventually going to surface. Explosively. And a lot of people aren’t going to like it. DLC david

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The most concerning thing is that the spike protein itself may be pathogenic, so that may have been a big oops.

      Delete
  32. Being a weight lifter has brought me into contact with a lot of healthy people. I have personally seen healthy people get sicker from the vaccine then from actual Covid. I respect the stance that some people do not want any unvaccinated people around them. I don’t think vaccine passports is the answer to that though. When you give governments an inch they take a mile. Vaccine passports would lead to even more invasive methods of government control later on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have zero respect for people that fear the unvaccinated. They are being irrational and lead around uncritically by government and media.

      Delete
    2. This too shall pass

      Delete
    3. After looking at the definition of respect I change my mind on using that word. They have their right to their opinion but the vaccine is not reliable. Government should not be able to enforce it

      Delete
    4. People of course have a "right" to any opinion. But it is my right to call that opinion uninformed and evil.

      Delete
  33. Well, you ARE a glutton for punishment after all.
    I like your reasonable take on this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people who believe I am the unreasonable one entirely swayed by Fox News are the ones deepest in cognitive dissonance: incapable of considering alternate points of views because their whole psyche is wrapped up in believing what they believe, allowing no room for even the smallest doubt. Truly sad.

      Delete
  34. Your political posts are tiresome, not because of your attachment to "controversial" right-wing views, but because you have no real interest in debate, only argument. They are not the same thing. You know this yourself, and even demonstrated you know what you're doing wrong when you demanded someone post one thing Trump did rather than "the usual laundry list".

    Every political post you make is a laundry list: a long series of biased conclusions on spoken and unspoken assumptions and preemptive yet selective dismissal of counterarguments (research is biased, so it can't be used to rebut you, but you happily agree with a commentator who refers to a study somewhere that supports your argument). There is no falsification condition for your argument because you will dismiss evidence against it as biased, all experts on the subject (who don't agree with you) as being dupes or on the take, all studies that don't agree with you as being flawed or manipulated by big pharma or whomever the villain du jour is.

    Which is fine if all you want out of political posts is to feel smug and smart because noone can "prove you wrong", I suppose. Proving you wrong would require first proving the veracity of every single scientific study used to argue against you, as well as the credentials and good character of every expert, scientist or doctor that contributed, and then you just go "Ah-HA!" because you read somewhere that the lead was paid by Pfizer at some point and dismiss the whole thing. To pin you squirming down on every point is a herculean task no sane person is going to do in blog comments, much less the comments in a blog about spanking. You've put yourself in a situation where you can't "lose". But making yourself impossible to be proved wrong is not the same as being right.

    If you actually have any interest in having a debate rather than an argument, there are two criteria your political posts miss:

    a) arguing a single issue, rather than a giant mess of interrelated assumptions (this post for instance assumes, amongst many other things, that all media and research is biased, that Covid vaccines are ineffective, that other things listed are more effective, that personal freedom is threatened in a new and sinister way by a vaccine passport, etc). A post interested in actual discourse would not force the reader to accept a bunch of assumptions you know perfectly well much of the intended audience does not accept to even begin to address its main point.

    b) Have a standard of proof that will cause you to admit you are incorrect. There is no way to prove you wrong on this post, because you have preemptively dismissed every source that can. That is the stuff of faith, not evidence. What's the point in arguing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't seem to understand "argument". I say things that support my point of view, you say things that support yours, and we later reflect, and the audience can make up their own minds.

      If my political posts are tiresome, please do not feel obliged to read them and post giant comments that do not contribute to the discussion.

      Delete
    2. I did try to contribute to the discussion - by pointing out that is precisely what you're not having, because you preclude any honest discussion with the post to begin with. An actual discussion could be interesting. But what is there to discuss with a post that preemptively declares all evidence contradicting it is wrong and biased?

      I read the post because you cared enough to post it. I made mine because I cared enough to, as well. I felt it was worth a shot to see if you'd see why these posts are not an invitation to genuine discussion or debate. It didn't persuade you; them's the breaks. Maybe someday you'll want actual discussion and you'll realise why you were wrong. Maybe someday I'll realise that I was wrong and posts like this actually spawn fruitful discussion in a way I can't perceive at the moment.

      Thanks for reading my "giant comment"; if you ever do change your mind, I'll be happy to debate with you on political issues then.

      Delete
    3. Your post seems to presume I am wrong without presenting any evidence. My views were being established over months of debate and reading, and I present them here. There was nothing new brought up that I had not heard before, and nothing sufficiently convincing in my opinion.

      Tell you what, why don't you pick the one biggest, most important thing you think I'm not accepting the evidence provided here on, and tell me why you think I'm wrong not to?

      It's going to be hard, I know, because my article's position is that it's hard to be sure what's right, and given that, we ought not force people. But please do try.

      Delete
    4. (Sorry if this got sent twice, it seemed to mess up the first time.)

      In the spirit of communication, I'll take you up on that offer to the best of my ability. Now, I can't literally do it because in my opinion the BIGGEST thing you are wrong on is how and why you distrust peer-reviewed scientific research (not to say that it is infallible, but how and why it is fallible and how and why it likely isn't), and that is honestly impossible to grapple with without asking for a lot of information from you to clarify the particular sources and parameters of this distrust. So I'll have to deal with something smaller, and I'll pick this statement:

      "And the mRNA vaccine technology is experimental in humans, it is the first time it is being rolled out. Longer-term side effects cannot be known."

      This is, as far as I can see, incorrect. mRNA treatments have been used in cancer trials for a decade, so long term effects would actually very likely already have been seen. As well, there is no actual mechanism via which a mRNA vaccine would cause a long term deleterious effect, as it is not a permanent change to the DNA of the recipient but rather degrades after several days (which is why you need more than one injection to get a full immunisation). Both points cited by a professor of immunology here:

      https://ec.europa.eu/research-and-innovation/en/horizon-magazine/five-things-you-need-know-about-mrna-vaccine-safety

      The CDC also cites the fact that they do not change DNA, do not stick around in the body and have been used safely for cancer treatments:

      https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

      Here's a story from the University of Alabama where the director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic again makes the case that long-term effects from vaccines are unlikely in general and unlikely for mRNA vaccines specifically:

      https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-know-about-the-long-term-side-effects-of-covid-vaccines

      This safety survey of mRNA vaccines (done by two immunologists/allergists Kimberly G. Blumenthal and Neelam A. Phadke, and David W. Bates, a physician who is the world's most cited researcher in patient safety and biomedical informatics, or at least so says Google Scholar) backs up the above as the deleterious side effects that can occur (chiefly anaphylaxis and myocarditis in people aged 12-39) are side effects that show up quickly, not over the long term, and it has a notably large sample size to draw from:

      https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784017

      I could cite more, but it would be along the same lines of qualified researchers and studies all making the same point, and I figure either four will convince you or a hundred won't. Moreover, it is pretty compelling to me to point out that there is no actual mechanism for long term effects from an mRNA vaccine because it does not stay in the body past stimulating the production of antibodies.

      In contrast, we do know that Covid-19 CAN cause long-term deleterious effects to people who have caught it, and the possibility does exist it may be worse than we currently think (but if you don't accept that, long terms effects on some are still known to exist). Unlike an mRNA vaccine, Covid has a multitude of different effects which are not all completely understood at this time (though better understood than they were a year ago).

      Therefore, if we put aside aside the question of efficacy and take for the sake of argument that mRNA vaccines are effective at preventing both the personal catching and population spread of Covid, then there is not any compelling reason to think they are a long-term threat to health comparable to the threat of catching Covid.

      Delete
    5. The reason I don't trust peer review is that I have been part of the process and seen how it actually works.

      Numerous research findings on peer review back me up on this. E.g. "A total of 443 reviews were analyzed. These reviews were provided by m = 130 reviewers for n = 145 submissions to an interdisciplinary conference. Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for improvement of scientific peer review." (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-017-2516-6).

      Very famously, Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chuef of The Lancet, the most respected medical journal, said "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." (https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf).

      Maybe don't trust me on this, but will you trust the Editor in Chief of the most pre-eminent medical journal?

      Turning to safety of mRNA vaccines.

      "But the fact remains that if Pfizer succeeds – or Moderna, with whom Israel also has a contract – these will be the first-ever messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines brought to market for human patients. In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies will have to prove there are no immediate or short-term negative health effects from taking the vaccines. But when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects.
      “There is a race to get the public vaccinated, so we are willing to take more risks,” Tal Brosh, head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital, told The Jerusalem Post."
      https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

      Phase 3 testing was not done for these vaccines, and that's a fact. And there is a big concern that the adverse effects are not being properly and systematically recorded as would be the case for a phase 3 study.

      I'm not arguing that the vaccine is unsafe. I am saying it is a novel treatment, and it has not undergone any proper phase 3 study. Therefore it is not unreasonable to say there is a greater risk. The Doctor quoted above agrees with me.

      Delete
    6. Of courese peer-reviewed is flawed. All processes are and science is no different. The key point is that literally every alternative you could choose (doing your own research, talk to your doctor, talk to your friends, some Dr on Youtube or Facebook, pundits like Joe Rogan, etc) is even less trustworthy. Peer review provides the best available process and the highest likelihood of being right. It's not perfect but its better than anything else.

      Delete
    7. 50% of peer reviewed science is wrong, and some of it may kill you, so yeah, use your brain, do your own research, listen to multiple experts, and make up your mind. Don't be sheep.

      Delete
    8. "Do your own research" is really just another way of saying 'fnd stuff that I like.' You are not qualified to do your own research on topics like this. Nor am I and I am a practicing research scientist with extensive training in research methods. But my field is not medicine so I am at best qualified to review the analytic parts. Excusing away research and evidence you don't like because "50% is wrong" or because you can find other "experts" who say the opposite is just a recipe for confrmation bias. You filter out that which you don't agree with and then call others 'sheep,' 'brain-washed,' 'close-minded,' and so forth. It doesn't lead you to better decision-making but it does make you impervious to counter-arguments so I guess that's something.

      Dunning-Kruger really did nail it.

      Delete
    9. When two experts disagree, how is one to decide? Your method is to blindly trust government and media. Ok. Mind is to listen to what each has to say, seek out others' points of view, discuss and debate, do what original source reading I can, and make up my own damned mind.

      Delete
    10. This guy talks about confirmation bias, but his whole post is an example of it. Like it or not, Mr. "Research Scientist" (I tend to doubt that) when experts disagree, one has to have the ability to make up one's own mind as to what constitutes acceptable risk. To foist it off on others is not what adults do.

      Delete
    11. You are projecting what you think I do without any real knowledge of it.

      One of the inital comments (not from me) suggested we all need a standard of proof for accepting when we are wrong. That's a good point. In my case, when I lack sufficient expertise in a topic, which is most topics if I am truly honest with myself, I accept the consensus position of the experts if there is one, as there is on ivermectin. There's always some who disagree but, as in this case, the research community will generally reach a consensus and generally be able to clearly articulate why. You might think that is "sheep" like but there is no more rationale approach than accepting guidance from those who know more.

      If there isn't a consensus, I generally wait until one forms. It's actually OK to hold off making a firm opinion until there is sufficent evidence for one. I might have a preference or prediction about what I think is going on but I wait until there's sufficient evidence whenever possible.

      That's hardly acting blindly.

      Delete
    12. You do seem to lash out pretty blindly at those who disagree with what you believe to be the consensus. As I stated in my blog, I am not "sure" of anything, but we all need to make judgments, and I just happen to not follow a one size fits all on every issue "it's the consensus so just do it". At one point bloodletting and leaches was "the consensus", and you would have blindly followed it.

      Delete
  35. If the vax works, then those that receive it shouldn't have anything to fear.

    At my work place, the last three people to have confirmed cases were all vaxed, they all had mild cases, recovered within a week. Individual liberty should not be violated for unproven, experimental vaccines in the name of safety.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be true of vaxed and unvaxed equally. Most people who get Covid do fine, especially in the younger, healthier populations, where the infection mortality rate is very, very, low (0.1% or less). So of every 1000 people who catch Covid, 1 will die amongst that group, even in the unvaccinated.

      They say the vaccine is "90% effective". What they mean is that it decreases your 0.1% chance of dying to 0.01%, or an absolue change of 0.1% or so. So you are taking the vaccine to improve your chances by 0.1%.

      People are being driven nuts over something with a small risk (and for emphasis, I am talking about young and healthy - different story for old, obese, other comorbidities).

      Delete
    2. Actually the vaccine is not even 90% effective as they claim to be. The 95% figure was accomplished through phase 3 trials, that were conducted in North America during Summer 2020. That was the time when the 1st wave had ended.So there was less of the virus to go around in the first place. I think the 1st variant was also the least transmissible. So you have less of the virus, that is less contagious, so they got the 95% number. If they had conducted the phase 3 trial during the peak of the 3rd wave, it would have been a different story.

      Secondly, vaccines dont prevent infections - I mean there is no physical barrier that prevents the virus from getting into your system. The vaccine only prevents adverse effects - pneumonia, ventilators, hospitalizations and deaths to a certain degree (much less than 95% in my opinion).

      Delete
    3. I would say there have not really been phase 3 trials, as that would entail a standard of data collection around adverse effects that simply has not happened, and results published.

      Delete
  36. Joe2 here,

    I always wondered why doctors in the United States were reluctant/refused to prescribe alternative treatments for COVID. Here is an interesting article on why:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/09/why_do_doctors_go_along_with_covid_panic_porn_and_cdc_prescriptions.html


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great article. I did not realize the extent to which Doctors are controlled like that. Certainly a very long way from even Doctors freely deciding what's good for their patients.

      Delete
    2. I'm curious. Were you really unaware that medicine is highly regulated? Were you really unaware Drs. have limits on what they can and cannot prescribe? Unaware that they have ethical requiements and restrictions on practice from government agencies, medical licensure boards, and so forth? Somehow I suspect not.

      This article basically boils down to nothing much. It simply says Doctors can get in trouble for unapproved treatments. Since the article specifically focuses on ivermectin it basically saying the obvious - ivermectin is not approved for treating this disease and a doctor can get into trouble using an unapproved treatment. That's not a big surprise. Nor it is something we'd want to change. We have regulatory processes for good and valid reasons and I doubt you are really advocating ending those or ending licensure requirements or ethics agreements. You just don't like the particular decision on ivermectin.

      Delete
    3. I'm curious, were you really unaware that off label use of drugs is common, and an important part of a Doctors toolkit? (https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label).

      Delete
    4. Joe2 here,

      I am aware of every thing you just replied to, but I did not know the how the government prevented doctors from prescribing Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine (and the other drugs needed to make a complete package), since off label drug use is legal. To me, the article was kind of like showing how a magician performed a trick. You know it is a trick. You just don’t know how it is done. Once the curtain is pulled back, it all makes sense.

      Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are well known, very cheap and very safe medicines, e.g. over 3 billion doses of Ivermectin has been prescribed with only 30 known deaths. So even if they don’t work, it is very cheap (the Ziverdo kit costs less than $10 US dollars) and the drugs are not going to hurt you. Accordingly, give people the Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine drug packages if they want it. Don’t get me wrong, you can kill yourself taking too much aspirin, so you have to take the right dose to stay out of trouble.

      Now the medical associations are a different matter. I fully expected them to try to stomp on alternative treatments. Medical associations are as self-certain and self-righteous as a TV televangelist. I fully expected them to act the way they have. OBTW, two state medical associations have brought two doctors up for medical malpractice. One doctor for prescribing a drug package with Ivermectin and the other with hydroxychloroquine. Both doctors were successful in fighting off the charges, because the doctors brought in all of their patient records and said, “how can malpractice have such a good outcomes.”

      Delete
    5. Naw, I'm just as aware of that as you are all of the other limit on medical practice. But I do appreciate you bringing it up because it is a nice rebuttal to the article. Why do I say that? Clearly the author could just provid an off-label prescription and solve his/her issue. Of course, then there'd be no point to the article and nothing for him/her to complain about. So thanks for pointing that out. Unless of course going off-label wouldn't apply here in which case your response is kinda irrelevant.

      Either way, thanks.

      Delete
    6. When the "word salad" comes out, it's time to go home, anonymous.

      Delete
  37. Well, you have convinced me. Nothing short of vaccine mandates will end the pandemic. As along as the gibberish that you spread is perpetuating the internet fog, too many will not get vaccinated on their own.

    Let's summarize. All of the respected sources, the FDA, the cdc, the AMA, the major hospitals are a single source apparently equal to every idiot with acces to YouTube.

    The vaccine cannot be trusted because it was not thoroughly vetted yet we should be looking at all these other untested remedies. Don't worry about how many people die in the interim. Let's not talk about the fact that the overwhelming number of hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated. Shush

    Meanwhile, people ike yourself who are vaccinated continue to spread disinformation and halftruths that discourage others from doing what you did to keep yourself safe. You want to have it both ways. Keep yourself safe and still maintain your right wing cred. How dihonest.

    I will bet you don't publish this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I publish most things, even rants like this that don't add to the conversation. I draw the line at pure insults, but this did not qualify.

      Your rage is apparent. Well beyond what is psychologically healthy. Understand that you've been very successfully programmed.

      I don't have any "right wing cred" - what a foolish thing to say from someone incapable of carrying on a cogent, unemotional discussion.

      Delete
    2. Still dodging

      Delete
    3. My argument is given above. Either challenge something specific with a reasonable argument, or begone.

      Delete
    4. My comments were very sopecific and are unanswered. I will let others speak.

      Delete
    5. Your argument is basically that I should trust your "respected sources" uncritically and there is no risk at all with the vaccine? All I say is "disinformation". You do not engage in the discussion. I made any number of reasonable points, yet you fail to address them. I might have written anything at all, made any points at all, and you would have made the same comment. That is not helpful. As I said, you've been very well programmed.

      Delete
    6. Well, the gentleman's tone is definitely not helping (with all due respect to all parties), but the question he rose about favouritism when "vetting" sources is -- I believe -- a credible one.

      Even aspirin can cause very strong adverse effects in children; no other medication was used more widely and consistently for children for decades without prescription than aspirin - now its usage for under-18 children is discouraged. No hidden agenda, or Big Pharma lobbying is accused -- and rightly so -- of being behind it all.

      Yet, somehow (and this is very specific sense you did mention it in your original post) Hydroxychloroquine --with its known, common adverse effects -- becomes a "safe over-the-counter medication" to encourage people to take at will, supposedly as an alternative to the "maybe extremely dangerous; we can't be 100% sure, so why not err on the side of safety" Covid vaccines - as one can guess form that part you wrote:

      "Encourage the use of *proven safe* potential prophylaxis such as Zinc (a known antiviral agent) and zinc ionophores (that speed the zinc into the cells) such as Quercetin, Ivermectin, Hydroxichloriquine."

      Do you not agree, Julie, (and I appeal to your sense of objectivity here) that if your "opponents" encourage the use of Hydroxychloroquine as well instead of discourage, it's possible that your opinion about it will shift to highlight its well-documented, “not entirely safe” side effects?

      There seems to be a tribal mentality emerging with regard to this whole pandemic and virus' everything (from origin to possible treatment), and I'm not saying that I'm not in fault myself here - I think we all are to some extent. So a good-nature dialogue definitely helps, and I appreciate your overall honest engagement in one, here and probable elsewhere.

      Delete
    7. All drugs carry some degree of risk. Even drinking excessive water carries some degree of risk. hydroxychloroqine is routinely prescribed as an anti-malarial and has been proven safe over decades of massive use. Same for Ivermectin, that is distributed in wholesale quantities to ward off parasitic infections and has also proven to be extremely safe. So no, my opinion would indeed not shift as facts are facts.

      I'm concerned that you're projecting in some way. You really want to exaggerate the "dangers" of these drugs and downplay the potential risk of a novel type of genetic engineering vaccine that did not go through phase 3 trials to pursue your own agenda?

      Delete
    8. I wasn't trying to exaggerate side effects, just to give an example of people looking where they are expecting to find an "evidence" of their position and eventually "finding" their desired 'gotcha' pieces of information.

      Can COVID vaccines cause strong adverse effects that could have went unnoticed even with a phase 3 trials and few years of testing? Absolutely, thy can - there's no reason to believe that phase 3 trials reach 100 % accuracy in eliminating the possibility of adverse effects in some groups (that was why I mentioned Aspirin - arguably the most common medication given to children of past generations, now the medical stance has shifted to discourage its administration to children under 18 - a phase 3 trial didn't/wouldn't necessarly predict those adverse effects).

      Does that mean that phase 3 trials are useless? Absolutely not. They are good at mitigating the possibility of undetected adverse effects in the previous phases. You want more accuracy? increase the sample and the time of the study. You won't reach a hundred per cent anyway, but you can still increase the time and sample and get more and more accurate results. The fact that those vaccines were approved by professionals after some but not all phases, tells you how proximate the entire process is, but nuance is thrown out of the window where COVID is concerned for some reason!

      Similarly, If someone want to make Hydroxychloroquine the most "dangerous" drug there is, they would do what anti-covid-vaxxers are doing nowadays - write fifty reports and articles a day about the drug's super dangerous side effects, and interview some blinded people due to it while you're at it, then conclude your report by shouting from the rooftop that we live in a clown world that can't even read "Anti-Malarial", and think it reads "Anti-Viral", or a preventative anti-viral instead.

      And I probably sound like a broken record by now, and maybe have abandoned some or a lot of the polite code in that rant, but I hope that my point (right or wrong, as points go) at least is more clear.

      Finally, we have already administered around 3.5 billion shots, and there aren't any political power of note that seems hesitant to introduce the vaccines to as many of its population as possible; we have governments from the "far left" to the "far right" reaching a vaccinated majority of their population (Canada and Israel perhaps can be good examples). In the US, there's a bi-partisan call for people to get vaccinated. I mentioned Trump's last-month, mostly-ignored-by-his-supporters call for people to get vaccinated as evidence of that across-the-political-spectrum pro-vaccination stance. And all around the world (with the exception of some opinionated third-world dictators here and there), there's a near consensus on the benefit that outweighs the potential risk of the majority of people getting vaccinated.

      I wish the best for all people as a core "agenda", and if I'm wrong or mostly wrong and you're right or mostly right, then I hope a lot more people would make your case more convincingly to the majority of poeple... for the sake of us all.

      Delete
    9. Your argument is a strange one, that I somehow made up my mind first around Ivermectin, and am now avoiding to mention that there are risks with it because... confirmation bias? No, the risks are well understood, and have proven to be tiny. And some clinical trials look good.

      I will (and have) said the exact same thing about vaccines, except pointing out they are brand new tech, did not undergo stage 3 trials, and in the lab in animal studies on previous attempts ADE risk was significant, and is a concern here (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32659783/).

      In my opinion, after having evaluated both sides, I arrived at my position, which is some should take the vaccine, others not, as explained in my post.

      Delete
  38. Not the point I was making. Please reread. The point I was making was that you more than once referred to the myriad sources that concluded that the vaccine is safe and effective as a single source. If, by 'programmed' you mean that my education has lead me to place much more faith in peer reviewed science, particularly when there is such a broad concensus, rather than theories that have not been peer reviwed, I would say that a better word than programmed is educated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm concerned that adverse reactions to the vaccine are not being properly counted, and that there has been no stage 3 trial. This is the base standard for all new treatments, much less entirely new categories of treatment such as mRNA vaccines, and was not followed (you may argue for good reasons and I would be sympathetic to that, that is at least an honest argument).

      Delete
  39. Yeah, this is an understandable take. I will say the data re: ivermectin are garbage though. The largest rct was fraudulent and withdrawn. That one had skewed all the meta analyses in favor of its use.

    sissy tay tay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Fraudulent" does not apply, "flawed" does. There are still many trials that show significant positive results (and others that don't). None have shown significant adverse effects. It's proven to work in lab and animal studies, so still a decent risk mitigation.

      Delete
  40. You know what the next step after vax passports is right? The next step is for the government to make it mandatory for people to get the booster shots every 6 months. Guarantee you they are gonna come up with an app to track this and you' have to show this everywhere you go. Infact, Goodlife Fitness just did this starting yesterday - we all had to show an ID and vax proof.

    Nobody has the right to force anybody to put anything into their bodies that they dont want to. Its absolutely ridiculous and a dangerous slippery slope.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big Pharma is rubbing their hands together in glee. Leftist governments too, so they can "add things on" to your "social credit passport" at will, and control their population. Two years ago I would have said that statement was loony conspiracy theory. Not anymore.

      Delete
    2. Joe2 here,

      I completely agree with you. Too many very unusual situations/policies and reactions to those policies have me scratching my head. Two things guide my decision cycle: follow the money and what are the secondary and tertiary effects of a policy/law. If you apply those two guideposts, discernment becomes easier. Many forget that there are very powerful people who are not empathetic and are driven by self interest- a very bad combination.

      When I went to pre-marriage counseling, the minister went on and on about things that I thought were just foundational points of life, e.g. the golden rule. So I told the minister that he was just spouting the obvious. His reply was it is only obvious because I was raised with those beliefs and that a large part of the world did not believe that. Later I worked in a foreign country. In that country, it was considered perfectly acceptable to lie. That was an eye opener. It was extremely hard to get anything done, because you could not assume anything. I feel like I have been teleported back to that country.

      Delete
    3. A poignant note, joe. Thank you for saying that.

      Delete
  41. I wish you weren’t getting rewarded for this, but clearly there’s interest in arguing with you so, okay, have at it I guess. To me, it just makes you look less intelligent than I thought. Your blog, your posts, have fun. I remain uninterested in your (or anyone else’s, on either side) blustery, combative political rants, and I look forward to more of the sort of blog posts for which you’ve attracted an audience when you return to them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To me, somebody who disapproves of a robust exchange of views on one of the most important topics in recent memory makes you look sheeplike and stupid, but hey, that's just my observation and perish the thought that I was intent on insulting you.

      Delete
    2. Now THAT was a verbal spanking, Julie. Can't say that idiot didn't deserve it.
      He or she or IT would have a point if , say, this was a post about you spanking your husband. Or naughty Julie gets her mouth soaped. If you wrote one of those type of posts and, in the middle, inserted a political rant about how all Republicans are "poo-poo heads", then I'd understand. It would be like 'bait and switch', and it would turn a light hearted or even erotic (or both) post into something divisive. Such happened with the NFL here. They not only allowed politics to invade the football field, they made it very clear to me that MY brand of politics was not welcome and so they lost a 25 year fan. Anyway, I also agree with your second point. One of the reasons I voted for Trump twice is I WANTED TO BE LEFT ALONE. Well the radical vaccine politics, and the divisive, hateful identitarian politics the modern Democrats in charge practice does not allow for that. Thus politics affects me, whether I want it to or not. And idiots like this, who pretend all politics are equally inconsequential make me utterly sick to my stomach. This isn't a disagreement over who should be the local dogcatcher or Student Body President it's a freaking debate over how much power the government should have to override an individuals own concern for their body integrity and health. They love defending abortion (which is still killing even if its possible to disagree about when you are killing a human and not just some undeveloped genetic material), but if your Doctor dissents from 'the consensus' they don't want him or her to be able to prescribe alternate treatments and they seemingly don't want anyone to be able to refuse a rushed bunch of experimental vaccines.

      Delete
    3. T. Bacchus, this is Joe2 here,

      I consider your post to be an attempt at shaming Julie, in the color of Alinsky's "Rules for radicals." You state nothing of substance, but try to shame the host.

      You offer nothing to the discussion, but try to shut the discussion down.

      When I visit blogs and disagree with the host, I only comment when it is on point to the purpose of the blog or if I have a constructive comment about the subject at hand. I do not spend time throwing verbal hand grenades.

      You could have commented on why the CDC is the supreme decider of all things about COVID or why Ivermectin is a bad idea.

      To me, your comment is only an attempt to shut the conversation down or display your need to comment without knowledge.

      Freeman Dyson, a brilliant scientist, said, "Science is always wrong, just hopefully it is less wrong than yesterday."

      Delete
    4. This isn’t a robust exchange of views, it’s you baiting liberals with opinions derived from YouTube videos and the conservative blogosphere and then shouting down anyone who comments in disagreement.

      I’m guessing it’s fun from your perspective, appears to generate traffic, and has zero impact on the world, so… have fun? I’m just not interested, and I think it reflects badly on you for many other readers too.

      How many “political” posts are we from a claim that Joe Biden is a satanic pedophile and Trump is really President? So far, the political stuff has been dressed up with big words but is otherwise pretty lock-step with red hats and Q, so I’m a little curious… exactly how far down the rabbit hole have you gone?

      Delete
    5. I think Joe2 hit the nail on the head. Look in the mirror, T.

      Delete
  42. Thank you everybody, we're bumping up against bloggers 200 comment max so I'll shut the comments down now (after having had the last word, of course :-). Feel free to email if you wish to continue the discussion. I have something very femdom (and involving other women) planned for david on Saturday, so stay tuned for that!

    ReplyDelete