I don't support mandates, but this argument is not sound. The study started with infected people, so it can't measure any differences in the probability, related to vaccination status, of getting infected in the first place. Indeed, nobody seems to have data that bear on this question. _IF_ vaccination significantly decreases the odds…
I don't support mandates, but this argument is not sound. The study started with infected people, so it can't measure any differences in the probability, related to vaccination status, of getting infected in the first place. Indeed, nobody seems to have data that bear on this question. _IF_ vaccination significantly decreases the odds of an infection -- as the CDC is telling us, and many believe -- and _if_ the vaccines were as safe as they claim, then I think one could make a case for mandates.
Decreasing the odds of an infection is not sufficient because then the death count will be the same at the end, only stretched over a longer period of time. Stopping the spread through mass vaccination would be a valid argument, but that almost never worked in history. And it will never work again because so many people believe that the government lied to them that a > 75% vaccination rate is out of reach forever.
"Stopping the spread through mass vaccination" won't work because the jabs don't stop infection or transmission of Delta.
The virus has a global IFR of 0.15% and well defined high risk cohorts. It has early treatment options that are being suppressed. There was never a reason to inject billions of healthy people.
Luc Montganier and Geert Vanden Bossche warned that mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic exerts evolutionary pressure on the virus, which is not as stable as believed, and will spin off new variants.
The UK has identified a new variant, Delta Plus, that has acquired two of the four mutations the virus needs to completely evade vaxx immunity.
The UK Health Security Agency has reported a higher rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 30 and older for the last six weeks.
The vaxxes do seem to provide some protection from severe disease and death when normalized for the population, but 79.7% of the deaths in the week 45 report were in the fully vaxxed. Only 17.1% of the deaths were in the unvaxxed.
Looking at the UKHSA surveillance reports it seems vaccine is effective for a short period of time.
For 1 to 20 days after first jab it seems very effective. Ironically as they claim it takes 14 days to develop immunity!
It soon deteriorates after 20+ days after the 1st jab and is disastrous after the 2nd jab ... the more so the older you get suggesting any possible benefit soon disappears.....in fact Expose calculates negative vaccine effectiveness....that is the vaccinated are more likely to get it!
Yet UK government, like Foxtrot Juliet Bravo has mandated care home and health workers are vaccinated.
The care worker mandate estimates 60,000 careworkers will be fired and at least 70000 hospital staff(in April 2022).
This delay then begs the question.....if the unvaccinated are so dangerous you have to implement totalitarian measures never done before in history....why wait until April 2022?
It was like mandatory mask wearing. Until 48 hours before the mandate our Prime minister swore they were not necessary....then they said they were necessary....but only in 10 days time!
Surely if so dangerous ...it should be immediate. Surely if so dangerous you'd supply the masks.
Also _IF_ the virus was much deadlier, _IF_ there were no effective early treatments or preventative measures, and _IF_ we were all just okey dokey with just shredding longstanding medical ethics around consent and bodily autonomy. Yeah, nope.
In the counterfactual world you seem to have in mind, where the virus was actually a broad and serious threat, where no other effective treatment for it existed, and where the vaccine actually prevented transmission, prevented the disease, AND could be honestly shown to induce no serious damaging side effects... well, they wouldn't have to rush to mandate that, would they? Those who did not volunteer would be on their own, and their autonomy could be respected. Mandates, if any, might come decades later, after the long-term studies. Hopefully those studies would be honest as well.
The weaponization of OSHA against the adult population is genuinely unprecedented. State vaccine mandates for childhood vaccines come as requirements for admission to schools. Nearly everywhere, and especially until recently, they also have exemptions. Parents could make informed choices. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has been leaning to the wrong side of this issue for quite a while now, in proportion to the creeping pharma industry takeover. A few mainstream pediatricians have led some measured pushback.
As far as I can see none of the previous mandates were with emergency authorisation .... Or .... using a new technology, ...or ...after suspect hasty trials ...or ... for a population of which over 90% were low risk.
The fact that everyone keeps using these "long standing vaccine mandates" as a justification to current mandates is an absurd and ridiculous argument. First, these are not vaccines and we need to stop calling them that. Second, this gene manipulation pathogen producing instrument, is a brand new, poorly tested, and never tested for long term effects technology, unlike anything ever used in the past like tradional vaccine technologies.
I don't support mandates, but this argument is not sound. The study started with infected people, so it can't measure any differences in the probability, related to vaccination status, of getting infected in the first place. Indeed, nobody seems to have data that bear on this question. _IF_ vaccination significantly decreases the odds of an infection -- as the CDC is telling us, and many believe -- and _if_ the vaccines were as safe as they claim, then I think one could make a case for mandates.
Decreasing the odds of an infection is not sufficient because then the death count will be the same at the end, only stretched over a longer period of time. Stopping the spread through mass vaccination would be a valid argument, but that almost never worked in history. And it will never work again because so many people believe that the government lied to them that a > 75% vaccination rate is out of reach forever.
"Stopping the spread through mass vaccination" won't work because the jabs don't stop infection or transmission of Delta.
The virus has a global IFR of 0.15% and well defined high risk cohorts. It has early treatment options that are being suppressed. There was never a reason to inject billions of healthy people.
Luc Montganier and Geert Vanden Bossche warned that mass vaccination in the middle of a pandemic exerts evolutionary pressure on the virus, which is not as stable as believed, and will spin off new variants.
The UK has identified a new variant, Delta Plus, that has acquired two of the four mutations the virus needs to completely evade vaxx immunity.
I've adjusted the text to clarify this case.
The UK Health Security Agency has reported a higher rate of infection in the fully vaxxed age 30 and older for the last six weeks.
The vaxxes do seem to provide some protection from severe disease and death when normalized for the population, but 79.7% of the deaths in the week 45 report were in the fully vaxxed. Only 17.1% of the deaths were in the unvaxxed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports
Does anyone seriously believe that human biology is different on the other side of the pond? The CDC is either lying or incompetent or both.
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-watch-2ba
Looking at the UKHSA surveillance reports it seems vaccine is effective for a short period of time.
For 1 to 20 days after first jab it seems very effective. Ironically as they claim it takes 14 days to develop immunity!
It soon deteriorates after 20+ days after the 1st jab and is disastrous after the 2nd jab ... the more so the older you get suggesting any possible benefit soon disappears.....in fact Expose calculates negative vaccine effectiveness....that is the vaccinated are more likely to get it!
https://theexpose.uk/2021/11/12/covid-vaccines-negative-effectiveness-minus-126-percent/
Yet UK government, like Foxtrot Juliet Bravo has mandated care home and health workers are vaccinated.
The care worker mandate estimates 60,000 careworkers will be fired and at least 70000 hospital staff(in April 2022).
This delay then begs the question.....if the unvaccinated are so dangerous you have to implement totalitarian measures never done before in history....why wait until April 2022?
It was like mandatory mask wearing. Until 48 hours before the mandate our Prime minister swore they were not necessary....then they said they were necessary....but only in 10 days time!
Surely if so dangerous ...it should be immediate. Surely if so dangerous you'd supply the masks.
The WHOLE thing stinks.
Not to mention in that data, after 200 days, it's in negative antibodies and the immune systems are worse than prior vaccination☹
Exactly. So they are making it worse. Let's hope ADE doesn't also become a reality
Also _IF_ the virus was much deadlier, _IF_ there were no effective early treatments or preventative measures, and _IF_ we were all just okey dokey with just shredding longstanding medical ethics around consent and bodily autonomy. Yeah, nope.
I agree with you that the existence of effective early treatments is a point against a mandate. But vaccine mandates in general are nothing new: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/08/states-have-mandated-vaccinations-since-long-before-covid-19/
That doesn't mean you have to support them, but I don't see how you can claim they go against "longstanding" medical ethics.
Scott, how familiar are you with the 1976 swine flu vaccine rollout?
When I say "longstanding medical ethics" I'm talking about voluntary and informed consent. https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/10/letter-to-physicians-have-you-checked-your-1947-nuremberg-code-today/
In the counterfactual world you seem to have in mind, where the virus was actually a broad and serious threat, where no other effective treatment for it existed, and where the vaccine actually prevented transmission, prevented the disease, AND could be honestly shown to induce no serious damaging side effects... well, they wouldn't have to rush to mandate that, would they? Those who did not volunteer would be on their own, and their autonomy could be respected. Mandates, if any, might come decades later, after the long-term studies. Hopefully those studies would be honest as well.
The weaponization of OSHA against the adult population is genuinely unprecedented. State vaccine mandates for childhood vaccines come as requirements for admission to schools. Nearly everywhere, and especially until recently, they also have exemptions. Parents could make informed choices. Unfortunately, the medical establishment has been leaning to the wrong side of this issue for quite a while now, in proportion to the creeping pharma industry takeover. A few mainstream pediatricians have led some measured pushback.
As far as I can see none of the previous mandates were with emergency authorisation .... Or .... using a new technology, ...or ...after suspect hasty trials ...or ... for a population of which over 90% were low risk.
The fact that everyone keeps using these "long standing vaccine mandates" as a justification to current mandates is an absurd and ridiculous argument. First, these are not vaccines and we need to stop calling them that. Second, this gene manipulation pathogen producing instrument, is a brand new, poorly tested, and never tested for long term effects technology, unlike anything ever used in the past like tradional vaccine technologies.
One of those so called mandates was BEFORE the ratification of the US Constitution!
(Oops -- hit Post by accident.)
The problem is, as I say, we don't even seem to have data on the odds of infection, and it's pretty clear we're being lied to about the safety.