Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

Contrary to popular perception the vast majority of people infected by covid survive. And recent testing of the blood supply by the CDC showed antibodies at a rate that would suggest infection happened up to two times more than previous estimates which would reduce the mortality rate even further. That’s not to say it can’t be deadly, because it is, just not to most people. So why get a jab? Because the risk from covid is generally greater than the risk from the vaccine.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...stimates-80-Americans-protected-COVID-19.html

The Israel data is what the third booster idea is based on so I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it. Supposedly some in the FDA are hesitant about a third shot because there’s so little testing (same with vaccines for kids) but hysteria will likely see both pushed through tout de suite because the regime needs a change of narrative.

 

Sorry, realised I wasn't being clear (in fact, slightly off base since Stuff Jones didn't claim that vaccines were ineffective. What I meant was that the linked analysis of the Israel data alone wasn't a good basis for concluding that natural infections provide better immunity than vaccinations.

Do people still take the Daily Fail seriously?

That said, I don't disagree that the infection rate is likely to be higher than expected. But you seemed to have missed my point there, which is whether we are generalising across the appropriate populations when using such data as is to make predictions and informing decisions. And honestly, I don't have a good answer for that either. I think one glaring weakness which this pandemic has highlighted is that news reports are extremely poor at conveying nuances in data which need to be accounted for in decision making, and the current level of science communication by scientists have probably not helped either.

 

Thank goodness for the seatbelt laws. The number of deadly flying meat popsicles being flung from vehicles during accidents before the 1980/90s (depending on the State/Province) was horrifying. One had to remain always vigilant for that catapulting upper torso or stray limb punching their ticket too early.

 

If you really believe this and we’re not just making a point in passing, then you are truly misguided.

Here are a few very good arguments against vaccination:

• An individual has a medical condition and their trusted medical advisor recommends they do not get vaccinated. This could be for any number of reasons or conditions, including pregnancy, past severe reaction to vaccines generally or specific COVID vaccine ingredients, susceptibility to known side effects of certain vaccines (like blood clots, heart inflammation or GBS).
• Their sincerely held religious beliefs preclude vaccination in general or receiving this specific vaccine.
• They have had a symptomatic case of COVID and thus have natural immunity. The more severe their symptoms, the better their antibody response based on studies to-date. Recent studies have shown broader immune response in many individuals with natural immunity as they have built up antibodies against the complete virus and not just based on the spike protein.

I’m sure there are others. Despite the narrative from the mainstream media, simply because a view differs from that published narrative does not mean it is misinformation or invalid. Science does not work this way. For decades natural immunity especially has been recognized as an exception to vaccination, even being included as an item on vaccination cards for mandated vaccines like smallpox (i.e., natural immunity = no vaccine). We don’t know enough yet to know if and how natural immunity differs over the long term with this virus, but that does not make it meaningless.

Stop vilifying anyone that is unvaccinated. It’s immature and inappropriate. Just because someone is unvaccinated does not by itself mean they are a danger to society. By taking measures noted above (working from home; minimizing time in indoor, high traffic, public spaces and wearing a mask when they do; and taking care of their personal diet, exercise, etc) they are minimizing their impact on others and the healthcare system, while exercising their right to bodily sovereignty.

If we really want to fight this global pandemic effectively, we need to shift our focus outside the US. I understand that is difficult for some to fathom as I assume most of us live in the US, but these more problematic recent variants are not believed to have originated in the US. They are believed to have originated in India, Peru and other South American countries, and potentially Africa, all of which have comparatively abysmal vaccination rates. Africa especially, yes the entire continent, has a vaccination rate under 5% last I checked.

This is why the WHO is telling Biden his booster rollout is unwise. We need to focus on getting meaningful vaccination rates in these other countries well before we consider boosters for anyone except the elderly and immunocompromised in the US. But because people have lost their minds and/or are using this pandemic to further their own political agendas (on both sides of the aisle), we aren’t doing that. Hopefully that changes soon.

 

Already answered, but no, it doesn't look like elimination is going to happen. I wonder how much it will still be shaping our lives in the years to come!

In my British social memory is also that many reacted to the drink+drive laws as if they were an even bigger intrusion into the liberty of the individual. Over the years, that changed into people choosing, from personal preference, not to drink and drive, or to make arrangements that one of a family or group would abstain and be the driver for the day. It's an instance in which people actually got the point. Not 100% of people, but very many.

 

Only your first point is a good argument against vaccination. The point about natural immunity may be an argument that it's less necessary, but it's not actually an argument against vaccination. There's data showing vaccines may boost protection even for those with natural immunity.

Religious exemptions are a touchy subject of course, but I suspect most of them are an anti-vax crock, not based on actual doctrine. And many seem based on false information like claims that there is aborted fetal tissue in the vaccines.

I do agree that a more proactive global vaccine rollout is called for.

 

Some specific medical reason: yes, good reason.

Religion: file under bloody daft.

Had covid: current recommendation is still to get the vaccine. But I know of one doc (covid intensive care), covid-recovered, who is not getting vaccinated, but who is monitoring his antibody levels. Probably most people wouldn't want to be bothered with that alternative, but it is an alternative.

Yes, there may well be other good reasons not to be vaccinated, but crazy beliefs and downright stubbornness are not among them.

But people, eh? People will be people, and that's it. So we are probably all doomed. Don't know how we survived this long anyway.

Vaccines are good. The speed with which they have been developed and tested and delivered is amazing. Do I ever have doubts? Sure, I do: I remember thalidomide. But I'm still on that vaccine road, which I'm sure is going to be an annual event, at least, now.

I wish there was a vaccine against religion. I think there is a very good chance that it is caused by viruses. (yes, that really is one of my crazy theories!)

 

These exceptions are a small percentage of the population and even given a broad/lenient interpretation vaccination rates should still be well in excess of 92, 94, 96% (though I disagree with your third point - the consensus for now is that the previous infected should still get vaccinated for themselves and others).

Speaking to the religious exemption, the magisterium of the RC church for example has approved ALL the current vaccines, so if a Catholic claims an objection of conscious to the vaccine they are out of bounds theologically and ecclesiologically. Since the Roman Catholics have the most coherent theological/ethical objections to abortion, it is basically nonsense for any Christian to object to the vaccination on Christian grounds. In other words as HHS points out their objection is really a libertarian objection, which for the vast majority of them is their real religion in any case.

Also, America is not responsible for the rest of the world in theory, and in no way could be in practice. Our first duty is to our own citizens and the only realistic course of action is 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc.) boasters shots instead of a pie in the sky "let's hold hands with everyone" program of fixing the world...

 

I was going to post about this next, after seeing the story above about the 30 nurses. Certainly a touchy subject.

The religious exemption itself of course has a long history and is not just applicable to an employer’s vaccine mandate, but any aspect of an individual’s employment. Its roots are found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which also provides protections for other protected classes like race, gender and nationality.

It is of course a shame that some folks are using the religious exemption in a disingenuous or unethical way. The religious exemption is only supposed to be for sincerely held religious beliefs. What was described above does not on its face seem sincere. The issue is that an employer will likely not do much digging into this sincerity, as they then open themselves up to potential civil rights suits. Some schools are currently doing this, meaning denying applications for exemptions, citing the same points as you about Catholic beliefs.

The issue is that the law and judicial interpretation of it has never hinged on whether a person is acting in accordance with their religious leaders’ decrees or even other members of their own faith. Religious beliefs are personal and courts are reticent to deem themselves interpreters of scripture or divine communications to individuals. There are currently many challenges pending to mandates where requests for exemption were denied. Denying the application in most instances would certainly put the employer on shaky legal ground.

The exemption is not absolute, however. An employer must make “reasonable accommodations” for an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, but not such that it causes an “undue burden” on the employer. There are actually old cases involving nurses who requested exemptions but to honor the exemption would mean they’d be put in close contact with their patients without being vaccinated. This would of course cause an undue burden on the hospital and endanger the patients, so the courts did not sympathize with the nurses. We may see something similar re: the above.

Much less of a concern for an office worker that is going to telecommute and doesn’t need to be on-premises or interact in-person with anyone.

I’d agree except that the manufacturers of the most effective vaccines are US-based and to serve our own best interests here means likely focusing on those other jurisdictions. The vaccines administered in many other jurisdictions, including China, are often much less effective against infection (e.g., Sinopharm). I’m sure that the folks with billions of dollars to fund vaccine campaigns like the Gates Foundation could work something out with their buddies to make this happen on a meaningful scale. If they don’t, and unless we restrict all foreign travel and shipments into the US, we likely aren’t going to see a meaningful reduction in variant infections as we head into the regular cold and flu season. We’ll more likely just continue to see more and more severe variants that are vaccine-resistant.

 

While I do not assume the calculation is the same for all, cost/benefit analysis for me dictated vaccination. I am 60 and I take care of my 84 year old mother, making us both pretty high risk, but even without that factor, the calculation was not even close. Since for me the cost was zero (other than a sore arm for a day or so) even a potential benefit is sufficient to outweigh the cost. But I am not in favor of forced vaccination, and it is apparent that there is a group of people who will not be vaccinated barring such a policy. I see stupid people everywhere, and they don't even know they are stupid. Maybe there will be an evolutionary benefit?

 

Full disclosure, I'm a tenured professor of human health, and a resident researcher at a hospital research institute. This doesn't make me right or an absolute authority, but I hope it gives you some background as to what guides me, and what scientific analysis skills I bring to the table.

That said, lets go.

Pregnancy is not contraindicated for COVID vaccines. The timing of pregnancies happening now is very much that those people could already have been vaccinated several times over. Latest data I have seen for allergic reactions for Pfizer is about 1 in 100,000 for severe anaphylaxis, broken down into about 1 in 10,000 for those with a history of allergies and 1 in 1,000,000 for people with no history of allergies. Heart inflammation, has there been a single death yet? Enough to establish an odds ratio? Blood clots, AZ is not a good vaccine, which is why usage is restricted to people with no risk of clotting.

Which religion would that be? Please be specific.

The best metanalysis I have seen for actual transmission is that previous infection offers about 50% of the protection of full vaccination. The best protection known to date is provided by previous infection followed by vaccination; somewhere between 2 to 5 times more effective than previous infection or vaccination alone. Vaccination after infection also seems to confer excellent protection against ongoing chronic tissue damage associated with long COVID. So generally, previous infection is not a great argument against vaccination.

I'd love to hear them, because I'm not seeing anything that even remotely justifies the drastically low vaccination rates in, for example, several US states.

If I thought that everyone who wasn't getting vaccinated was truly respectful of COVID risk, and was largely isolating at home, wearing masks, and generally being considerate of their neighbours and community, I might agree. But you and I both know that is a complete fairy-tale. This new generation of "my body, my choice" folks are mostly acting like petulant teenagers, and who have never given the slightest credence to other people's bodily autonomy. Immature and inappropriate indeed.

I wholeheartedly agree. Boosters are only justified for immunocompromised people for whom two shots has not been effective. Global vaccination rates need to be much higher. This is not a good argument against 'at home' first vaccinations.

The cost benefit for almost every individual on the planet overwhelmingly favors vaccination. There is simply no other scientific outcome you can reach.

 

You know what, me posting here started out as making fun of someone in the ICU demanding horse paste, and here I am in full on argument mode. I can feel that whatever thin veil of tolerance I have is slipping. I am going to bow out of this thread before I start saying things I regret.

Enjoy your day, fellow travellers.

 

This sums up my feelings, and I'm a Libertarian who is vaxxed since I believe the benefits outweighs the cons. I made this decision without being forced, but I don't make a big deal about it.

 

Church of Christ, Scientist. And no, the inherent irony in the name, especially in this context, has not escaped me.

 

Warning: I am ony 12.7% (if that) classical liberal, which means most of the following will be illiberal and thus challenging and offensive to liberals of both the left and right.

@zonto as a matter of governance (law), the legal problematics you are pointing to are a good example of how inadequate Classical Liberalism is in theory and practice to so many "problems" of life and the world. Virus don't read or conform to the worldview of Locke and Madisonian democracy. The 1964 Civil Rights act, particularly expanded into its current form (e.g. it does not actually cite the novel concept of "gender" but as you say in current practice it does) is a disaster when applied to viruses, vectors, and pandemics. Religion (i.e. real belief such as Christianity, Islam - most actual historical religion) , is not in point of fact what Classical Liberalism says it is, though since CL is the religion of culture and the land of course so naturally it gets to do what it wants.

Justice Kennedy summed it up best with his infamous "...At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life..." statement. All historically significant religions would not agree with this at all, because fundamentally they are about Reality and the Real (even when they miss the mark), and in no way agree with such an ridiculously obtuse and radical Cartesian assertion. CL's will of course reply with "yea, but we could not agree on religion, truth, life, the universe and everything so that's why CL was invented so that we all could find a way to live together without shooting each other..." This is the myth, the legend, the doctrine of CL and most of us were taught this in school and by the culture and just assume it is true. Yet, modern culture is revealing to us cracks in the myth, and when problems that can't be papered over with our technological prowess and prosperity, two recent examples being Afghanistan and this pandemic, CL's inability to even properly frame the question (let alone provide a single coherent answer) is laid bare. Yet, even here, we cling to it like a rabid dog because its the only thing most of us know.

I say all this to point out our society's basic decadence, which as several of you have pointed out we all see and feel, though what it is and why it is we can't quite put our thumb on. It is a decadent and broken culture that in the face of a deadly pandemic which has a relatively easy solution - vaccinate almost everyone - can't get it done. We have the technology, we have the wealth and means, we have everything we need except the philosophy - the basic human decency.

To put it another way, we are all too religious(!) and doctrinaire(!) about our supposed (Cartesian) "liberty", which itself has to be one of the most unreal and putrid religions ever thought of by (fallen) man...

 

(I think I can safely reply to this one without going nuts)

That's the only one I had heard. According to Wikipedia, their numbers currently stand at about 50,000 people in the US, less than 400,000 globally.

I honestly thought Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Saints were anti-vaxx which would have been the 'big ones' accounting for millions. But nope, they all seem AOK with it. Christianity in general is entirely on board provided the vaccines aren't derived from fetal tissue. That really is a huge benefit of the mRNA vaccines, no 'grown' component at all, essentially fully synthetic.

 

All too true. Yet as you are seeing man (i.e all that he is, all that he does, and all that he believes) is not a scientific phenomena. Our culture is a wholly owned subsidiary of Liberty Inc., and if/until the high priests and managers of sacred Freedom convince their followers that vaccination is not heresy, the science (and reality itself) is quite besides the point...

 

I find it interesting that everyone in this thread is pro vaccine despite the very different political opinions here. Someone I met recently and have wound up loving very much is against vaccines and is infuriated by the vaccine passports. She has all kinds of "data" she has found all over the internet to support her idea that vaccines are dangerous. You know the dangers she's talking about - all the rumors.

I find it difficult to relate and difficult to talk to her about. I try to by sympathetic because I love who she is at a fundamental level, as a person, but it's really off-putting reading her rants about vaccines.

The internet has created a world where any opinion can be backed up with facts. You can find facts to support anything. There's absolutely no way to have a conversation or discussion with her about vaccines because she has her own set of facts.

This is true with politics in general these days. It did not used to be this way though, discussion used to be much easier between people with opposing views. But when people both have their own facts, there is nothing you can say to each other.

I'd love to hear some arguments or articles to share with her that might be enlightening. What would you say or what do you say to a friend who is against vaccines?

 

I think the issue that bothers me the most is how demonized mask wearing has become. I can understand not wanting to take the shot, maybe you're against it for very logical reasons. Or, you're against it because you read in your FB essentials oil group that Gwyneth Paltrow's vagina scented candle can cure you. If you don't want to take the shot that's fine but don't complain when businesses, hospitals, airlines, and family members exclude you because at the basic level of human decency you can't be bothered to put one on. If you can't for real medical reasons, I got you, that's why I'm wearing my mask but if you have real medical reasons don't go out.

My high school principal who I love to death is now spouting that wearing masks steals O2 and causes a build up of CO2. Also, that it can cause a build up of germs inside. Which, sure, if you keep wearing the same mask day in and day out is unsanitary. But the worse is when they say that the next step is to take the shot is to lead into the mark of the beast. Mind you, when we were all growing up we had to take vaccines to even get into school. He's one of the people in my life that thought me to critically think.

People started to take the virus seriously at our job when we lost around 20 employees from last year to now. That's more employees that have passed away from non job related deaths counting back years. The impact doesn't include people who were deathly ill but made it. So now they are requiring masks for everything and are putting in policies that if you're working on site and the contractor requires the Covid shot from you, you can take the shot or be moved to another project...if there are any projects that don't require the shot.

Alright, let me get off my soapbox.