Excellent article. Israel is dropping passports because they are ineffective in reducing the spread of Omicron. That should be the end of the argument. If organisations believe they have a right/duty to protect the health services will they also apply the rules to those taking part in dangerous sports or those that persist in an unhealthy lifestyle?
Even with a sterilising vaccine such as measles vaccination, only three provinces "require" it, and the rule is flexible, not only to religious or medical exemption, but exemption based on conscience. No Canadian child is refused education because of vaccine status.
Covidians need to stop using childhood vaccination as an argument for all social mandates, specially with an illness that leaves kids unscathed.
Anyone willing to take a hard look at what's happening knows something is seriously wrong.
To preface this, I am not against vaccines. In fact, I've had dozens of them over my lifetime due to my work. However, when I bumped up against the following firsthand (and several similar stories since) early last summer, I decided to take a wait and see attitude.
A service provider for my family was super pro vax. Then one day the attitude changed and I called him out on it, wondering what was up. Turned out his two brothers, both in their mid 20s, had decided to get the vax the previous week. They both received Pfizer together. Four days later, literally two hours apart, they both had heart attacks.
The doctors said it was a coincidence, but the nurses told them it was the vax.
My service provider is now scared out of his mind (mostly because of the utter rejection of the doctors to call a spade a spade) and the entire family won't touch another shot. They won't go public either due to the blowback they know they'll have to endure.
Fast-forward to today: everyone I know - vaxxed, unvaxxed, triple vaxxed - is getting covid now. And some of them quite badly. As The Globe finally had the balls to explain over the weekend (read "Vaccines are a tool, not a silver bullet") vaccines will never solve this problem alone.
No vaccine mandates are not at all reasonable. Firstly and foremost is the annoying TRUTH, that the 'vaccine' only has EUA status. Im FED UP TO MY EYEBALLS that a EUA drug has not been properly vetted -as in gone through real research and yet is treated like some infallible God. And what about early treatment therapeutics? What about the malicious censorship of other scientists? Think Great Barrington Declaration. We never had to go through this bs. Instead we see captured govt, media, scientists, big pharma. Peoples lives HAVE BEEN DESTROYED! It didnt need to be this way.
A fairly and honestly done assessment of the question. The evidence cited by Professor Diane Pohler is pretty overwhelming in showing that many of the vaccine mandate policies, both by the governments and employers, are unreasonable and wrong. Forced vaccination policies, using threats of firings or actual firings, denials of health services, fines, denials of access to food, etc. very likely are the most unreasonable and immoral, and are most likely unsupportable legally.
As she says, she is not an epidemiologist or a virologist, but that is totally irrelevant. Her arguments have to do with political, social, moral and legal issues, which she is perfectly positioned and qualified to analyze.
The witch-hunt attitudes of a significant number of ordinary citizens, most predominantly political supporters of authoritarian political parties and politicians, share responsibility for such policies and the stubbornness of government policy makers who refuse to abandon or modify unreasonable policies. Of course, we all know that politicians and governments almost never abandon or modify unreasonable policies unless forced to by citizen action.
Morals don't enter into it anymore, as the jabs are proving to be deadly duds. The science, backed by unadulterated data, proves this out, more and more. This false efficacy claim as well as the existing excellent drugs being quashed for early treatment, makes the moral argument a non-starter. IF, and that's a big IF, the injections were sterilyzing, effective 95% as claimed, had low and less serious side effects, (like death!) then and only IF the virus was more deadly than this joke, then you can talk about mass mandated vax.
The morality of this discussion is in question if you do not critically examine the basic physical, underlying scientific details of how this is more than a pandemic.
Right after the vaccines were rolled out I got emails from friends and family asking if I'd been vaccinated yet. My reply then was the same as it is now: Welcome to the test group, and good luck, but I prefer to remain in the control group.
Conversations with people I've spoken too since then all put forth the argument that there's some sort of moral obligation involved, and that I should do the right thing to protect the vulnerable and ease the burden on the health care system.
Sorry, no dice. The entire point of vaccination is to protect you from me, not the other way around. If you're vaccinated, then by definition you are protected. Otherwise, it's not a vaccine. At the beginning we had Fauci saying "the vaccines are virtually 100% efficacious." So, how did that work out? Still feel protected?
Now you say the vaccines reduce symptoms compared to not being vaccinated. Well sorry, that argument is premised on the lack of early treatment, evidence for which existed before the vaccines arrived, and which was suppressed on the flimsiest of arguments: that we lacked long term safety data and large scale clinical trials. In short, the same lack of evidence as accompanied the so-called vaccines.
Meanwhile, solid evidence from around the world proves that early treatment is at least as effective as the vaccine, with none of the attendant risks. You had to dig to find this out, because a full court press by MSM ensued to discredit early treatment, accompanied by so-called "fact checkers" with zero qualifications banning any discussion of the issue on social media. This reached the height of absurdity when they rolled out Rachel Maddow, every Karen's favourite virologist, to tell you that you're not a horse, a sentiment echoed by the FDA, even though the drug in question (IVM) has been in human use for decades and has a stellar safety record - better than Tylenol in fact. So basically, they were lying. Right to your face.
The medical ethic of dealing with a new pathogen is crystal clear, and every doctor knows this. You reach into your tool box of possible treatments, and weigh the likelihood of success against the possibility of harm. In the case of IVM and HCQ, the record speaks for itself. Both widely used for decades, and safer than almost any drug we know of. So why were they denied across most of the western world? Why are doctors being harassed and threatened with loss of their licence for prescribing it?
If you haven't figured out by now that you're being lied to on a massive, systemic scale, then by all means, go get your booster shot. They're up to 4 in Israel now, and talking about a 5th and 6th as we speak. Just so you know though, the Canadian govt. has about 8 million doses sitting in inventory, all targeting the original virus which has long since disappeared. That's what you'll get when you go for your booster, so all you're really doing is helping the government avoid the embarrassment of having spent 1/4 BILLION dollars on a vaccine that no longer works, and that never could work for reasons any epidemiologist could have told you since day 1: You cannot defeat a respiratory virus with a vaccine.
Lastly, if you haven't looked into this question other than to take proven liars at their word, then you have no business debating me or anyone else who's researched this topic in depth. If you don't know the difference between a sterilizing and non-sterilizing vaccine, if you haven't looked at the scientific papers drawing attention to the dangers of vaccinating with a product that hasn't been properly tested, if you haven't asked yourself why the only treatment on offer is not a traditional "killed" virus vaccine but an entirely novel gene modifying approach, if you don't know what OAS or ADE are, or the danger of non-aspirated injection, then fine, go ahead and join the test group, but if you try to drag me into it because irrational fear and ignorance got the better of you, then you can expect a fight.
Final point, and this one's for all you low information pro-vaxxers with your hollow arguments and cowardly behaviour. If you go hungry because people like me refuse to be coerced into taking a untested drug against sound medical advice and long standing international conventions, then it's on you. Me, I'm just parking my truck and staying home and frankly, I don't care if you go hungry. You, with your ignorance, your arrogance and blind trust in Authority did this to us, so turn about is fair play.
Thank you for this article. I don't think you can discuss mandates without also discussing the passports. Essentially, both mandates and passports were foisted on us in order to prevent the spread of Covid: you get the shot, it prevents you from getting sick and you can't spread the disease. As you pointed out and what should be obvious to all by now, the shots do not prevent disease (I know MANY double vaxxed who got sick over the Christmas break). Therefore the logic of mandating them to "keep people safe" is nonsensical. Further, a "passport" proving your vaccination status will likewise do nothing to protect anyone as the bearer of that passport is capable of both contracting Covid and spreading it.
Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister spewing hate speech about "those people" who are endangering everyone else's lives because they won't comply with his mandates. Excuse me, but if the shots don't stop the illness, can't EVERYONE spread the illness? And where is the discussion of natural immunity? I am a health care worker who has been working throughout the pandemic. I am not in a high risk environment and I likely had a very mild case of Covid in March 2020 (I was unable to get tested as I didn't fit all the criteria at the time). As we now also see from the hundreds of references regarding the efficacy of natural immunity over the injections (why this is a surprise I can't understand... injections can only ever mimic our natural response to illness...) there is no logical reason for a Covid recovered person to risk taking an injection for something they are already immune to.
And as it turns out there are many severe adverse effects to the injections, including disability and death. Unfortunately, Canadian statistics are abysmal regarding adverse reactions and deaths due to the injections so I don't think we get a clear picture as to the real frequency.
Looking to VAERS in the US we see astounding numbers of injuries, and according to Dr. Jessica Rose (https://downloads.regulations.gov/CDC-2021-0089-0024/attachment_1.pdf) adverse events are greatly under-reported. As it stands, there are so far more deaths listed due to the Covid injections in the past year than in ALL OTHER VACCINATIONS COMBINED FOR 30 YEARS. These injections are not as safe nor effective as we were initially told. So, if there is a risk of death or injury from the injections, it is morally and ethically wrong to mandate them or coerce through threats of job loss or denial of normal social engagement. Where there is risk there must be choice. And as the President of Croatia has recently stated, when death is a potential risk, mandates are in fact murder.
Anyone interested in the scientific evidence around natural immunity should have a look at this latest video by Dr. John Campbell of the UK. This is based on a January 19, 2022 article on the CDC statistics in the U.S.
Thank you, Tara and Dionne, for your willingness to engage in this debate in a sociopolitical climate of suppression of views that go against the mainstream messaging, which seems to be accepted unquestionably.
This *entire* conversation is fatally flawed from the get-go. It's based on a patently false premise, namely, that the Chinese virus experimental gene therapies are "vaccines".
THEY ARE NOT.
We know this, because they don't do what vaccines are supposed to do, they don't behave the way vaccines behave.
And we know THIS, because the corrupt, dishonest US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had to change the definition of "vaccine" in order to call these "vaccines" precisely BECAUSE they don't do what vaccines do.
So whether vaccine mandates are reasonable is a moot point in this case. The question is,
Are experimental gene therapy mandates reasonable? And THAT discussion would take about five seconds to conclude. (I timed it.)
"Thank you for coming. Folks, join me next week when we investigate whether calling a horse's tail a "leg" would mean you now have a five-legged horse."
I am fully vaccinated. My comment is an appeal for truth, transparency, and reliance on science versus politics, emotion, and media dramatization. I like science and utilized it often in my risk management career.
This report clearly confirms that if you have been diagnosed with covid your immunity is actually better than double vaccination. Not surprising given that vaccines efficacy comes from attempting to mimic having the disease.
The head of the CDC also recently stated that vaccines do not stop transmission.
Here is the data on vaccine "injury" from the Canada health website
The data shows that the vaccine isn't 100% safe for everyone, 269 deaths and 7,738 serious injuries in Canada as a result of vaccination.
Data from the Alberta Health shows the following about Alberta covid deaths
about 75% of all deaths had 3 or more existing conditions
about 17% had 2 conditions
About 5% had 1 condition
about 3% had no previously diagnosed conditions
The most common comorbidities in Alberta were; hypertension (high blood pressure), cardiovascular disease, renal disease (kidney disease), diabetes, respiratory disease, and dementia
So covid is primarily a risk for people who have known underlying conditions (97% of all deaths). How many people 30 (even 40) or younger have the conditions listed above, pretty rare I would think. That might explain that the average age of a covid death is in the 80s across the world. In the UK the average lifespan for men has dropped by 7 weeks since covid. For women the average lifespan has increase by 1/2 a week in the same period.
Risk = Consequence x Probability - thats the science. Government and media focus on consequence. If consequence only was the focus on, for example, traffic accidents we could justify shutting down traffic (did you know that globally about 1.5M people a year die from traffic incidents (a disproportional # of young people) - covid is what, 30% more than the traffic fatality number and a disproportional number of people over 40). I have not crunched the data (because I have not found it) but my hypothesis is that young people without underlying conditions likely have about the same risk of dying from the flu and more risk of dying in a traffic accident as dying of covid. Thats what the science will likely say if we use it. If true, a young person would have a higher overall survival rate if they took a traffic awareness class versus a jab of a vaccine.
Awesome article. Like most crises, AIDS/HIV, SARS, MERS , WMD or 9-11. We tend to overreact. Governments & media seize the opportunity to gain power or improve ratings. In every situation, they pick a villain, organize a mob, shun & suppress opinions or facts that goes against their collective narrative.
Years go by, more facts emerge and the truth eventually comes out. Usually the mob finds a scapegoat, accepts no responsibility for their part, then deflects to move on to the next โcrisisโ
โThereโs this idea that people donโt know whatโs good for them.โ I have been thinking that for most of the pandemic! There is this very dangerous idea that only the enlightened social media elites and the government know what is good for us and that it is right to strong arm, shame, and bully anyone who isnโt on board with their plans for โthe collective good.โ
The professor put it perfectly: โAs soon as we start assuming that people cannot make the best decisions for their own health, we go down a dangerous path.โ
Excellent article. Israel is dropping passports because they are ineffective in reducing the spread of Omicron. That should be the end of the argument. If organisations believe they have a right/duty to protect the health services will they also apply the rules to those taking part in dangerous sports or those that persist in an unhealthy lifestyle?
Even with a sterilising vaccine such as measles vaccination, only three provinces "require" it, and the rule is flexible, not only to religious or medical exemption, but exemption based on conscience. No Canadian child is refused education because of vaccine status.
Covidians need to stop using childhood vaccination as an argument for all social mandates, specially with an illness that leaves kids unscathed.
Anyone willing to take a hard look at what's happening knows something is seriously wrong.
To preface this, I am not against vaccines. In fact, I've had dozens of them over my lifetime due to my work. However, when I bumped up against the following firsthand (and several similar stories since) early last summer, I decided to take a wait and see attitude.
A service provider for my family was super pro vax. Then one day the attitude changed and I called him out on it, wondering what was up. Turned out his two brothers, both in their mid 20s, had decided to get the vax the previous week. They both received Pfizer together. Four days later, literally two hours apart, they both had heart attacks.
The doctors said it was a coincidence, but the nurses told them it was the vax.
My service provider is now scared out of his mind (mostly because of the utter rejection of the doctors to call a spade a spade) and the entire family won't touch another shot. They won't go public either due to the blowback they know they'll have to endure.
Fast-forward to today: everyone I know - vaxxed, unvaxxed, triple vaxxed - is getting covid now. And some of them quite badly. As The Globe finally had the balls to explain over the weekend (read "Vaccines are a tool, not a silver bullet") vaccines will never solve this problem alone.
No vaccine mandates are not at all reasonable. Firstly and foremost is the annoying TRUTH, that the 'vaccine' only has EUA status. Im FED UP TO MY EYEBALLS that a EUA drug has not been properly vetted -as in gone through real research and yet is treated like some infallible God. And what about early treatment therapeutics? What about the malicious censorship of other scientists? Think Great Barrington Declaration. We never had to go through this bs. Instead we see captured govt, media, scientists, big pharma. Peoples lives HAVE BEEN DESTROYED! It didnt need to be this way.
A fairly and honestly done assessment of the question. The evidence cited by Professor Diane Pohler is pretty overwhelming in showing that many of the vaccine mandate policies, both by the governments and employers, are unreasonable and wrong. Forced vaccination policies, using threats of firings or actual firings, denials of health services, fines, denials of access to food, etc. very likely are the most unreasonable and immoral, and are most likely unsupportable legally.
As she says, she is not an epidemiologist or a virologist, but that is totally irrelevant. Her arguments have to do with political, social, moral and legal issues, which she is perfectly positioned and qualified to analyze.
The witch-hunt attitudes of a significant number of ordinary citizens, most predominantly political supporters of authoritarian political parties and politicians, share responsibility for such policies and the stubbornness of government policy makers who refuse to abandon or modify unreasonable policies. Of course, we all know that politicians and governments almost never abandon or modify unreasonable policies unless forced to by citizen action.
Morals don't enter into it anymore, as the jabs are proving to be deadly duds. The science, backed by unadulterated data, proves this out, more and more. This false efficacy claim as well as the existing excellent drugs being quashed for early treatment, makes the moral argument a non-starter. IF, and that's a big IF, the injections were sterilyzing, effective 95% as claimed, had low and less serious side effects, (like death!) then and only IF the virus was more deadly than this joke, then you can talk about mass mandated vax.
The morality of this discussion is in question if you do not critically examine the basic physical, underlying scientific details of how this is more than a pandemic.
Right after the vaccines were rolled out I got emails from friends and family asking if I'd been vaccinated yet. My reply then was the same as it is now: Welcome to the test group, and good luck, but I prefer to remain in the control group.
Conversations with people I've spoken too since then all put forth the argument that there's some sort of moral obligation involved, and that I should do the right thing to protect the vulnerable and ease the burden on the health care system.
Sorry, no dice. The entire point of vaccination is to protect you from me, not the other way around. If you're vaccinated, then by definition you are protected. Otherwise, it's not a vaccine. At the beginning we had Fauci saying "the vaccines are virtually 100% efficacious." So, how did that work out? Still feel protected?
Now you say the vaccines reduce symptoms compared to not being vaccinated. Well sorry, that argument is premised on the lack of early treatment, evidence for which existed before the vaccines arrived, and which was suppressed on the flimsiest of arguments: that we lacked long term safety data and large scale clinical trials. In short, the same lack of evidence as accompanied the so-called vaccines.
Meanwhile, solid evidence from around the world proves that early treatment is at least as effective as the vaccine, with none of the attendant risks. You had to dig to find this out, because a full court press by MSM ensued to discredit early treatment, accompanied by so-called "fact checkers" with zero qualifications banning any discussion of the issue on social media. This reached the height of absurdity when they rolled out Rachel Maddow, every Karen's favourite virologist, to tell you that you're not a horse, a sentiment echoed by the FDA, even though the drug in question (IVM) has been in human use for decades and has a stellar safety record - better than Tylenol in fact. So basically, they were lying. Right to your face.
The medical ethic of dealing with a new pathogen is crystal clear, and every doctor knows this. You reach into your tool box of possible treatments, and weigh the likelihood of success against the possibility of harm. In the case of IVM and HCQ, the record speaks for itself. Both widely used for decades, and safer than almost any drug we know of. So why were they denied across most of the western world? Why are doctors being harassed and threatened with loss of their licence for prescribing it?
If you haven't figured out by now that you're being lied to on a massive, systemic scale, then by all means, go get your booster shot. They're up to 4 in Israel now, and talking about a 5th and 6th as we speak. Just so you know though, the Canadian govt. has about 8 million doses sitting in inventory, all targeting the original virus which has long since disappeared. That's what you'll get when you go for your booster, so all you're really doing is helping the government avoid the embarrassment of having spent 1/4 BILLION dollars on a vaccine that no longer works, and that never could work for reasons any epidemiologist could have told you since day 1: You cannot defeat a respiratory virus with a vaccine.
Lastly, if you haven't looked into this question other than to take proven liars at their word, then you have no business debating me or anyone else who's researched this topic in depth. If you don't know the difference between a sterilizing and non-sterilizing vaccine, if you haven't looked at the scientific papers drawing attention to the dangers of vaccinating with a product that hasn't been properly tested, if you haven't asked yourself why the only treatment on offer is not a traditional "killed" virus vaccine but an entirely novel gene modifying approach, if you don't know what OAS or ADE are, or the danger of non-aspirated injection, then fine, go ahead and join the test group, but if you try to drag me into it because irrational fear and ignorance got the better of you, then you can expect a fight.
Final point, and this one's for all you low information pro-vaxxers with your hollow arguments and cowardly behaviour. If you go hungry because people like me refuse to be coerced into taking a untested drug against sound medical advice and long standing international conventions, then it's on you. Me, I'm just parking my truck and staying home and frankly, I don't care if you go hungry. You, with your ignorance, your arrogance and blind trust in Authority did this to us, so turn about is fair play.
Thank you for this article. I don't think you can discuss mandates without also discussing the passports. Essentially, both mandates and passports were foisted on us in order to prevent the spread of Covid: you get the shot, it prevents you from getting sick and you can't spread the disease. As you pointed out and what should be obvious to all by now, the shots do not prevent disease (I know MANY double vaxxed who got sick over the Christmas break). Therefore the logic of mandating them to "keep people safe" is nonsensical. Further, a "passport" proving your vaccination status will likewise do nothing to protect anyone as the bearer of that passport is capable of both contracting Covid and spreading it.
Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister spewing hate speech about "those people" who are endangering everyone else's lives because they won't comply with his mandates. Excuse me, but if the shots don't stop the illness, can't EVERYONE spread the illness? And where is the discussion of natural immunity? I am a health care worker who has been working throughout the pandemic. I am not in a high risk environment and I likely had a very mild case of Covid in March 2020 (I was unable to get tested as I didn't fit all the criteria at the time). As we now also see from the hundreds of references regarding the efficacy of natural immunity over the injections (why this is a surprise I can't understand... injections can only ever mimic our natural response to illness...) there is no logical reason for a Covid recovered person to risk taking an injection for something they are already immune to.
And as it turns out there are many severe adverse effects to the injections, including disability and death. Unfortunately, Canadian statistics are abysmal regarding adverse reactions and deaths due to the injections so I don't think we get a clear picture as to the real frequency.
Looking to VAERS in the US we see astounding numbers of injuries, and according to Dr. Jessica Rose (https://downloads.regulations.gov/CDC-2021-0089-0024/attachment_1.pdf) adverse events are greatly under-reported. As it stands, there are so far more deaths listed due to the Covid injections in the past year than in ALL OTHER VACCINATIONS COMBINED FOR 30 YEARS. These injections are not as safe nor effective as we were initially told. So, if there is a risk of death or injury from the injections, it is morally and ethically wrong to mandate them or coerce through threats of job loss or denial of normal social engagement. Where there is risk there must be choice. And as the President of Croatia has recently stated, when death is a potential risk, mandates are in fact murder.
Comrade: you don't need a long article to state that the answer to your question is F*** NO.
Anyone interested in the scientific evidence around natural immunity should have a look at this latest video by Dr. John Campbell of the UK. This is based on a January 19, 2022 article on the CDC statistics in the U.S.
https://youtu.be/25-iJKPA1CA
Thank you, Tara and Dionne, for your willingness to engage in this debate in a sociopolitical climate of suppression of views that go against the mainstream messaging, which seems to be accepted unquestionably.
This *entire* conversation is fatally flawed from the get-go. It's based on a patently false premise, namely, that the Chinese virus experimental gene therapies are "vaccines".
THEY ARE NOT.
We know this, because they don't do what vaccines are supposed to do, they don't behave the way vaccines behave.
And we know THIS, because the corrupt, dishonest US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had to change the definition of "vaccine" in order to call these "vaccines" precisely BECAUSE they don't do what vaccines do.
So whether vaccine mandates are reasonable is a moot point in this case. The question is,
Are experimental gene therapy mandates reasonable? And THAT discussion would take about five seconds to conclude. (I timed it.)
"Are experimental gene therapy mandates reasonable?"
"No."
"Thank you for coming. Folks, join me next week when we investigate whether calling a horse's tail a "leg" would mean you now have a five-legged horse."
I am fully vaccinated. My comment is an appeal for truth, transparency, and reliance on science versus politics, emotion, and media dramatization. I like science and utilized it often in my risk management career.
Here is a report from the CDC
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
This report clearly confirms that if you have been diagnosed with covid your immunity is actually better than double vaccination. Not surprising given that vaccines efficacy comes from attempting to mimic having the disease.
The head of the CDC also recently stated that vaccines do not stop transmission.
Here is the data on vaccine "injury" from the Canada health website
https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccine-safety/
The data shows that the vaccine isn't 100% safe for everyone, 269 deaths and 7,738 serious injuries in Canada as a result of vaccination.
Data from the Alberta Health shows the following about Alberta covid deaths
about 75% of all deaths had 3 or more existing conditions
about 17% had 2 conditions
About 5% had 1 condition
about 3% had no previously diagnosed conditions
The most common comorbidities in Alberta were; hypertension (high blood pressure), cardiovascular disease, renal disease (kidney disease), diabetes, respiratory disease, and dementia
So covid is primarily a risk for people who have known underlying conditions (97% of all deaths). How many people 30 (even 40) or younger have the conditions listed above, pretty rare I would think. That might explain that the average age of a covid death is in the 80s across the world. In the UK the average lifespan for men has dropped by 7 weeks since covid. For women the average lifespan has increase by 1/2 a week in the same period.
Risk = Consequence x Probability - thats the science. Government and media focus on consequence. If consequence only was the focus on, for example, traffic accidents we could justify shutting down traffic (did you know that globally about 1.5M people a year die from traffic incidents (a disproportional # of young people) - covid is what, 30% more than the traffic fatality number and a disproportional number of people over 40). I have not crunched the data (because I have not found it) but my hypothesis is that young people without underlying conditions likely have about the same risk of dying from the flu and more risk of dying in a traffic accident as dying of covid. Thats what the science will likely say if we use it. If true, a young person would have a higher overall survival rate if they took a traffic awareness class versus a jab of a vaccine.
Listening to you now on Megyn kelly! Good choice Tara. You are knocking it out of the park. I may have to support you financially!!
Awesome article. Like most crises, AIDS/HIV, SARS, MERS , WMD or 9-11. We tend to overreact. Governments & media seize the opportunity to gain power or improve ratings. In every situation, they pick a villain, organize a mob, shun & suppress opinions or facts that goes against their collective narrative.
Years go by, more facts emerge and the truth eventually comes out. Usually the mob finds a scapegoat, accepts no responsibility for their part, then deflects to move on to the next โcrisisโ
โThereโs this idea that people donโt know whatโs good for them.โ I have been thinking that for most of the pandemic! There is this very dangerous idea that only the enlightened social media elites and the government know what is good for us and that it is right to strong arm, shame, and bully anyone who isnโt on board with their plans for โthe collective good.โ
The professor put it perfectly: โAs soon as we start assuming that people cannot make the best decisions for their own health, we go down a dangerous path.โ