Vaccine mandates and institutionalized segregation

Vaccine mandates: a new form of ‘institutional segregation’

Increasingly, vaccination is no longer a matter of choice. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of workplaces and schools are instituting COVID-19 vaccine mandates, with more expected following formal FDA licensure of the vaccines. But mandating people and their children who have consciously chosen not to get vaccinated — a group that tends to be younger, less educated, Republican, non-white and uninsured — is a recipe for creating new and deeper fractures within our society, the kind of fractures we may profoundly regret in hindsight.
Let’s not sugarcoat it: This is a new form of institutionalized segregation. Yes, some unvaccinated adults may swallow this bitter pill and comply as a way of doing their part in making America safer. But many will see it — along with requirements that the unvaccinated wear masks or undergo regular COVID testing — as a thinly veiled attempt at public shaming. After all, if the goal is to maximize the interruption of spread, then surely all people should be masked irrespective of vaccination status.
Forced compliance will come with future consequences. The ensuing anger, resentment and loss of trust forms a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. Are we ready to add this mandate to the list of issues helping erode the fabric of our society?

These practices diverge substantially from the historical norm of equal opportunity. For all other required vaccines, religious and philosophical exemptions allow unvaccinated children to enjoy the same educational experience as the vaccinated. This is because exemptions reflect a social value that in the United States, there are valid reasons for refusing treatments or vaccines, and these reasons will be respected. Once exempt, there are no sanctions experienced in everyday life. But with COVID vaccine mandates, even those with exemptions are being sanctioned, sending another clear message: We really don’t care about your reasons.

Even though not everything here is true Joe still makes a good point.

Interesting viewpoint

An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2

On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”. The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors, which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists. The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.

Read the rest of the article and make up your own mind on what you get from it.

I’ve read that the virus was discovered in bats in China over a decade ago and the sample was taken to Wuhan for study. I have learned that Fauci and others were doing gain of function research there and that those involved have made lots of money from whatever they had been doing for some time. 2/3 confirmed facts sure look like I don’t yet know enough about the coronavirus that has run rampant through the world and that some countries got different origins of it at the beginning. That’s pretty much all I know.

Good question

01382D6B-5061-421F-8846-38E64A2A1B15.jpeg

More selective masking.

Greenwald was on Jimmy recently and showed how the elite get to run around mask free whilst the help wore them. Obama’s shindig. Pelosi’s shindig and beauty treatments. SF mayor who said that she didn’t wear hers because she was having fun. Newsom and countless others have been seen violating the mandates that they put on the rest of us peons.

Share
up
18 users have voted.

Comments

meme misspells "coercion". That detracts from the impact.
A client came for an interview today. A dentist. For business reasons, I asked her what her office did for precaution, and that led to the jab discussion. She will not get it, will not require her employees to take it, as does my vet client/pal near here, as does my Dr. nearby.
I can't believe this mandate supplants Constitutional rights, but it might.

up
12 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

joe shikspack's picture

@on the cusp

"coercin" sounds like the patent name of a drug. i suppose i should leave it to the imagination as to what the drug does. Smile

up
11 users have voted.

@joe shikspack goes to wild places.

up
9 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

@on the cusp @on the cusp is interesting. But I think it's been more than a century since Scotus last had a major vaccine mandate question before them (1905 Jacobson) and voted in favor of the feds. Edit: That involved a state vaccine mandate, not a federal edict.

Biden currently has only a partial mandate in place. -- fed workers and companies w/more than 100 employees. He probably heard from advisors it is a dicey proposition politically and maybe legally, and decided just to do a partial. Let the state, local govt and smaller private entities do the rest.

But seems to me a good legal challenge at the fed or state level would want to show the trial court how these vaccines just aren't effective at stopping virus spread, and so their reason for being is in serious question. You can't really insist on a govt vaccine mandate where the main purpose is for reducing the rate of deaths/hospitalizations, which is how these vaccines have been advertised for most of the past 9 months since rollout. I don't think that a showing of marginal reduction in those areas would be nearly sufficient to overcome personal privacy/body autonomy objections.

There would be other challenges too, likely involving the questionable way these dubious vaccines were not given the usual long time for clinical study, and so by their very nature they tend to be more experimental drug products rather than true vaccines.

Hard to tell whether having a 6-3 conservative majority would help the anti-mandate forces, but there's that possibility.

up
12 users have voted.

@wokkamile to privacy.

up
11 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

personal story on social media the other day regarding a doctor who declined to see a regular patient suffering near-urgent symptoms upon learning he was unvaccinated.

Has anyone heard of doctor vaccine mandates wrt patients? First I"ve heard of it, no way to verify, haven't heard on any msm stories along these lines. It would be unethical, imo, for the doctor to refuse treatment on this basis.

up
8 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

@wokkamile

i could imagine a doc asking a patient exhibiting covid symptoms to go to a hospital emergency room where they have facilities to isolate a patient to prevent spread, rather than his/her office. perhaps i am being overly generous with my imagination, i dunno.

up
7 users have voted.

@joe shikspack didn't mention Covid symptoms, just a near-urgent situation with something. But perhaps the doctor sensed a Covid situation. First time I've heard of a doctor asking a patient about his vaccine status. I hope this doesn't become the norm.

Still, imo, the doctor from a purely ethical pov should not decline to see the patient. No 100% guarantees of safety in the medical profession. For sure, from a doctor's business pov, he has the right to not see patients. A matter of what he CAN do vs what he SHOULD do.

up
5 users have voted.
joe shikspack's picture

@wokkamile

i pretty much agree with you about the ethics, with the caveat that a doc should have the discretion to direct a patient to a specialist or facility that is better able to treat said patient. i wouldn't fault a doc for not wanting his office staff or patients in the waiting room to be exposed to a potentially nasty virus when it could be more safely handled in another setting.

i think that it would be reprehensible for a doc to refuse to see patients to punish them for not getting a covid vaccine.

up
9 users have voted.

@joe shikspack last point, the heart of the matter.

As to Covid safety, we know that being vaccinated doesn't prevent getting the virus and spreading it (and vaccinees might even be more likely to spread, per that VN hospital study reported a month or so ago). Far better, if the doctor has great concerns about Covid spread in his office, to require a very recent test which would probably turn off a number of his patients, or set up a quick 15-min test in his office, which doesn't seem practical.

up
8 users have voted.

@joe shikspack Both for skin problems. Headed to a 3rd next week. On the list you fill out, the question is, had a vax or not?
I have not been asked about flu vax before, or any other vax. Ever. I feel "tracked" and just a bit pre-diagnosed.

up
11 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

@on the cusp from a few yrs back that I saw a Flu Vax? question on one doctor's intake forms. I saw it, unremarkably, as just one of the many Qs a doctor asks to get as complete a picture of your medical situation as possible. I recall other Qs on the intake about other vaccines like Last Tetanus Shot; probably most of the others. Of course there was never a question of those other vaccine qs being a threshold question to permit you to become the doctor's patient.

up
8 users have voted.

@wokkamile But the Current vax is obviously added into the previous forms. I guess it bears on allergies and skin cancers. (snark)

up
6 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

janis b's picture

@joe shikspack

is to call Healthline or your doctor if you have concern that your symptoms are covid related. From there you would be directed about what to do. Understandably, doctors don't want patients with symptoms of the virus to visit their office where they see other patients. Covid is not the one and only medical condition that deserves attending to.

up
11 users have voted.
CB's picture

@janis b
It appears that asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons can transmit the disease according to the CDC.

The following is CDC guidance for non-healthcare workplaces:

"Given the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection, use of antigen tests in asymptomatic and presymptomatic persons can be considered."

Maybe the rules s/b that EVERYONE get an antigen test before they visit the doctor or hospital?

up
6 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@CB

I understand this to be the current practice. I assume that after careful screening (by phone) of the individuals symptoms, appropriate advice would be given. Likely, it would be to be tested first.

Precautions in Healthcare Facilities

At all Alert Levels healthcare facilities and businesses will take precautions against the risk of COVID-19 transmission. These can include:

risk screening on arrival
contact tracing
providing services over the phone or online if you have any symptoms
asking you to wear a face covering while visiting the healthcare facility.
When accessing healthcare, you must take precautions against the spread of COVID-19, including:

physical distancing
wash or sanitise your hands
keep track of where you have been
wear a face covering, where possible

https://covid19.govt.nz/health-and-wellbeing/how-to-access-healthcare-an...

I guess time will tell how the current practice works here. I'll try to keep up to date.

up
5 users have voted.
edg's picture

@wokkamile

Every doctor my wife and I go to asks about vaccine status, requires masks, and observes special coronavirus protocols. I had rotator cuff surgery 2 weeks ago and had to bring my vaccine card along to get into the surgery center. My wife's rheumatologist begged her to get the 3rd vaccine shot just yesterday.

up
6 users have voted.

@edg I've been to 3 different doctors for different reasons (PCP, dermatologist and ophthalmologist) since the vaccine rollout, and not once have been asked about my vaccine status. I have cataract surgery coming up mid-Oct and a pre-op sheet of important things to do before that, but nowhere on that list is there anything about having to produce a vaccine card before entering the surgery room. It would moreover be a bit absurd as I will effectively be masked during the surgery (they put a light cloth over my face), and the surgery lasts only about 15 min.

And with some studies out there (VN controlled hospital study) suggesting vaccinated actually carry 241x more viral load than unvaccinated, the HCWs will be much safer with this unvaxxed patient.

up
9 users have voted.

@edg unvaccinated? Say, 1 jab, or 2 jabs but not plus 2 weeks?
Would you or your wife been denied care?
I wonder if drs. are demanding the vaccinations as a prerequisite around the country. I am wondering about the legal consequences. It looms large, down the road.
If drs. can do it, then ers and hospitals can.
If so, shamans will get a lot of business.

up
6 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

edg's picture

Google Image Search for united states vaccine protests

Protests.jpg

Source: Photos of vaccine protesters enduring rampant institutionalized segregation

up
4 users have voted.

@edg @edg engage in organized protests on the vaccines, but it's still true that the Black and Latino communities are more resistant to getting these jabs compared to Whites, so a sort of quiet unseen protest. https://abcnews.go.com/Health/us-blacks-latinos-remain-covid-19-vaccine-...

up
10 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@edg

Yeah why bother to?

up
9 users have voted.

It is not until the tide goes out that you discover who has been swimming naked.

Proud election denier

@edg has nothing to do with race.

up
4 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

TheOtherMaven's picture

@on the cusp

with every other form of segregation that has ever been practiced in this benighted country (class, race, income, education, etc.)

Basically, the Haves get to do as they please, and the Have-Nots are supposed to knuckle under and OBEY.

up
6 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@TheOtherMaven My comment was to Edg, in that he made it all about race.

up
3 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

CB's picture

An appeal for an objective, open, and transparent scientific debate about the origin of SARS-CoV-2

On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”. The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors,which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife...
...
Although considerable evidence supports the natural origins of other outbreaks (eg, Nipah, MERS, and the 2002–04 SARS outbreak) direct evidence for a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 is missing. After 19 months of investigations, the proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 is still lacking. Neither the host pathway from bats to humans, nor the geographical route from Yunnan (where the viruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 have been sampled) to Wuhan (where the pandemic emerged) have been identified...
...
A research-related origin is plausible. Two questions need to be addressed: virus evolution and introduction into the human population. Since July, 2020, several peer-reviewed scientific papers have discussed the likelihood of a research-related origin of the virus. Some unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence suggest that they may have resulted from genetic engineering, an approach widely used in some virology labs. Alternatively, adaptation to humans might result from undirected laboratory selection during serial passage in cell cultures or laboratory animals, including humanised mice. Mice genetically modified to display the human receptor for entry of SARS-CoV-2 (ACE2) were used in research projects funded before the pandemic, to test the infectivity of different virus strains. Laboratory research also includes more targeted approaches such as gain-of-function experiments relying on chimeric viruses to test their potential to cross species barriers.
...
Overwhelming evidence for either a zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out...
...
An evidence-based, independent, and prejudice-free evaluation will require an international consultation of high-level experts with no conflicts of interest, from various disciplines and countries; the mandate will be to establish the different scenarios, and the associated hypotheses, and then to propose protocols, methods, and required data in order to elucidate the question of SARS-CoV-2's origin...

Scientific journals should open their columns to in-depth analyses of all hypotheses. As scientists, we need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts. Contrary to the first letter published in The Lancet by Calisher and colleagues, we do not think that scientists should promote “unity” (“We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture”). As shown above, research-related hypotheses are not misinformation and conjecture. More importantly, science embraces alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy. Departing from this principle risks establishing dogmas, abandoning the essence of science, and, even worse, paving the way for conspiracy theories...

NOTICE: With this change of tune, the Lancet is signalling a MAJOR shift from SARS-CoV-2 being of zoonotic origin to being laboratory designed. Something is up. I'm wondering how Fauci is going to extricate himself to leave the blame solely on the Chinese. Is this the first salvo in the coming war on China?

up
11 users have voted.

Lawsuits? In this environment? This was over a long time ago.

Preposterous non-sequiturs are public policy and anybody who points out the absurdity of ideas like the unvaccinated are making the vaccinated sick is told to shut up with more than a hint of punishments to come. There is no legitimacy anywhere in any public authority.

I certainly agree, as a guy who went to law school, that the obvious and normally triumphant argument to defeat the mandatory vaccination directives is that there is no rational purpose for the mandate. All the Plaintiff needs to prove the case is the material from Pfizer and Moderna about their products. You cannot simultaneously reduce symptoms and prevent infection. No amount of sophistry or peer reviewed research can evade this contradiction at the core of the vaccine narrative.

But that obvious contradiction gets pointed out on message boards and some non-main stream media without making a dent in the MSM and governmental narrative of blaming the unvaccinated for the continuation of the pandemic.

.

Opposition to these irrational mandates starts from the assumption that the disease is real and calls for public health intervention. The question is whether the current vaccines are a necessary component in the effort to end the pandemic. As a society we have already allowed our leaders to change all our lives drastically and the result so far is by any measure disappointing.

From the start of the pandemic shutdown, I have heard from countless business associates that "they will have a vaccine in X months and life will get back to normal." Those hopes were misplaced and the authorities are riding on the inertia behind that very widely held assumption to avoid explaining their failures to end the pandemic and the lack of any convincing evidence of success.

As I have posted before, establishment supporting voices rely upon the age old sophistry of reversing the burden of proof. Since I cannot prove the the vaccines are not working, of course they are working perfectly.

When the lies are this bold, it is long past time to hope for a better outcome. It is also past time to do much of anything to stop this roller coaster ride. As Rip Torn said to Will Smith in Men in Black about the imminent destruction of Planet Earth, "Sucks, doesn't it?"

August 1914 seems to me the best analogy. A global network of "powers" led by self important nincompoops misunderstood everything about what they did as they all bumbled and stumbled into The Great War. Most of the countries of the world are now bumbling and stumbling into a multi-year calamity that is ripping civilization apart.

Meanwhile, with the travel and retail industries decimated, somehow the stock markets have skyrocketed during the pandemic while housing prices have increased by upwards of 15%. By the way, 15 million out of the 140 million single family dwellings are unoccupied. There is a bizarre disjunction between crashing sectors of the global economy and these ridiculous market rallies. There is no secret about how such a weird result can happen -- both market rises are driven by The Federal Reserve creating over a trillion bucks a year for the specific purpose of "supporting" those markets.

The only sure thing about this weird juxtaposition is that there some heavy bullshit at work.

None of this adds up.

.

With the vaccine narrative being ram rodded with braindead bullying, I can see nothing good on the horizon. Just because I can't see it, it does not necessarily mean there is nothing real to hope for.

I hope I can figure out something to hope for. . .

up
11 users have voted.

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

@fire with fire
The following video on “Mass Psychosis” may clarify that perception. You will first need to accept the possibility that you, and the vast majority of the population, are susceptible to subliminal and overt manipulations. I had no problem with that notion. You will also need to accept the possibility that your government is not a “representative” body, but answers to other interests. Again, I had no problem with that notion either.

Where I DID have difficulty was in accepting the notion that the motivations being served are malevolent in the extreme. My difficulty is that I could not find a benign explanation more likely than the malevolent one.

Watch at your own peril.

up
11 users have voted.

“We have a very small window in which we need to make a fundamental shift away from capitalism.” Kshama Sawant

@ovals49
.

A very interesting presentation in the video. Most importantly, it offers a way to fight back against the manipulation.

I am with you in having had to re-think how bad this is. Up to now, I still believe that we are watching an ad hoc response to the outbreak of a respiratory virus, letting loose the dogs of neoliberal logic. Every player in this Great Game simply follows its own self interest via profit maximization. The Pill Business has always run on Expanding the Market and the pandemic was a god send for Pfizer and Moderna.

Never kill the Golden Goose and sell booster shots forever.

It can't be that simple, can it?

up
8 users have voted.

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

@fire with fire it's "too late" for lawsuits. Biden just announced these mandates a few weeks ago. His admin hasn't even completed the legal paperwork at Labor/OSHA to formalize the edict.

Will the many current legal challenges or those in the works face a difficult legal path given the Jacobson case? Probably, even definitely. But we won't know until it's tried, so there's no sense in just throwing in the towel before the game even gets started. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. To sit back in frustration and do nothing or not use all weapons at our disposal would be even more cowardly than AOC voting "Present" or Obama cravenly caving to the anti-healthcare reform Rs on 95% of what they wanted before negotiations began.

And since this is football season: It would be like that NY Football Giants Super Bowl team of a few yrs ago seeing the mighty undefeated NE Patriots take the field and deciding, nah, it's not worth it, why bother risking injury when they don't lose, they have Tom Brady and Bill Parcells? Close students of football history will recall that while it took at least one miracle play, the NY Giants did indeed defeat the mighty Patriots that day. And it could happen in court too, including at the Scotus level.

And there might be some important differences between Jacobson and today's situation, starting with the challenge to the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in open court and in the discovery phase, which fundamental challenge was not allowed to be fully fleshed out back then due to bogus "prejudicial effect" concerns by the trial court judge. And the smallpox vaccine of that time had already had a century of development behind it when rolled out again in 1904 via a local MA mandate. Contrast with today and these experimental rushed-through vaccines on a novel, highly complex virus.

Contrast too the relatively tiny number of adverse vaccine reactions then to the govt' s own VAERS numbers on these vaccines -- startlingly high for deaths and serious reactions. Further, the smallpox vaccine actually was effective in stopping the virus spread; not so the Covid vaccines, which have been advertised as more to prevent hospitalization rather than prevent infection and spread.

And so on. A virtual kitchen sink of legal objections to the Biden mandates could be used, and it only takes one.

up
7 users have voted.

@wokkamile

And I cannot prove that my fatalism is accurate. But, I have zero faith in the legal system being any more legitimate than the medical system in the current chaos.

Please believe me when I say I want to be wrong -- as of about six weeks ago I had your point of view. This shit is a massive violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. It should be child's play to get it enjoined. We shall see fairly soon.

My best hope is that the Biden Government does not put real teeth in the mandate and that specific strand of totalitarian rule will not materialize. Nothing in the "news" suggests that this is likely, but it could happen.

The only point of active disagreement I have with your post is that it only takes one case to blow up the program. I can easily imagine whoever is pulling the strings on Sleepy Joe having him go Andy Jackson on us and tell a Judge to go fuck himself during this Life and Death Crisis.

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
Step out of line, the men come and take you away

When I was a teenager, I loved the song but I really did not know what paranoia was until just the last few weeks. Call me Chicken Little and I will enjoy the shit out of the laugh when I am proven wrong.

Thanks for a reasoned response.

up
8 users have voted.

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

@fire with fire I'm thinking either Kate Smith or Doris Day.

Here's a recent favorable fed court ruling placing a temp injunction on enforcing NYC's vaccine mandate on school workers. We'll see how it goes in a few days with the 3-judge panel, but a winza win. https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/25/vaccine-mandate-nyc-teachers-51...

up
5 users have voted.

@wokkamile
.

The song, if you are not just joshing me, was written by Steven Stills when he was part of Buffalo Springfield. "For What Its Worth." Nice shot if you are giving me the business here . . . .

I agree that a win is definitely a win, but this ruling is not on the merits. The Internet Law has been turning on whether people have a right to refuse to cooperate with life saving public health policy. Ignorant sophistry calculated to bamboozle. The real legal argument as we both mentioned upthread is quite different -- there is no logical connection between mandating this vaccine and the purported goal of stopping the spread of covid variants.

.

The headines these last few days show umpty dump thousand health care workers or teachers or whoever getting fired for refusing to get inoculated. That is the real news in these legal stories. People are voting with their jobs. Many of them doctors.

I quit my job on August 31 to avoid being fired on September 1 for failure to produce proof of vaccination. I have skin in this game.

As of late 2020, I was not enthused with the idea of Operations Warp Speed. I knew nothing of the science, and I still don't. (I am also very skeptical of Message Board Scientists who share their ironclad assessment of how wonderful these particular treatments are.) But that is beside the point -- I was cautious and the word "reluctant" was accurate.

Then I read what the Pfizer management team was telling the investment community as of March 11, 2021:

.
A little bit now on the emerging variants, which is we've been working with our partner, BioNTech, in terms of trying to understand what impact it would have on the protection that our vaccine provides. And to date, we've seen no evidence that would suggest there is a loss of protection in
terms of the protection that's provided by our vaccine. So I view that is obviously a good thing.

Now we still -- given all that, we still want to stay ahead of these emerging variants. And so hopefully, one of the things you noticed is we announced recently that we will be evaluating a third dose of our vaccine, a booster, to understand the durability of immunity and the efficacy against these emerging variants of the virus. So that's kind of, I'll call it, maybe a quick summary of everything that's been going on.
.
/snip/
.
So in terms of, I'll call it, the business going forward, although we're not certain, based on everything we've seen to date, we believe it's becoming increasingly likely that an annual revaccination is going to take place. And we believe that, that's going to take place for the foreseeable future, most likely a single dose, but that's what we see based on what we've seen to date. And not as -- so we don't see this as a onetime event, but we see this as something that's going to continue for the foreseeable future.

Now in terms of pricing, let me see if I can hit on that. So if you look at how current demand and current pricing is being driven, it's clearly not being driven by what I'll call normal market conditions, normal market forces. It's really been driven by kind of the pandemic state that we've been in and the needs of governments to really secure doses from the various vaccine suppliers. So what we believe, what I believe is as we move from a pandemic state, from a pandemic situation to an endemic situation, normal market forces, normal market conditions will start to kick in. And factors like efficacy, booster ability, clinical utility will basically become very important, and we view that as, quite frankly, a significant opportunity for our vaccine from a demand perspective, from a pricing perspective, given the clinical profile of our vaccine. So clearly, more to come here. But we think as this shifts from pandemic to endemic, we think there's an opportunity here for us.

.
Six months later, well what do you know? Booster shots were planned as of then. Other variants were an "opportunity."

And these guys who were selling a product that most people around the world presumed were designed to stop the spread of "the" disease were planning on "the" disease to mutate and last forever.

Yet so many people are STILL assuming that these treatments will stop the spread of COVID. Oy ve.

Reading this cold blooded approach to Saving Lives through contracts with governments, my very low estimate of the global health establishment's credibility took another nose dive and my plan to monitor the performance of the vaccine before taking the jabs was put on the shelf.

Month after month and the Vaccine Narrative fell apart. Breakthrough Cases? Oh, yeah, that was to be expected if you had listened to Pfizer to begin with. See above. As I keep repeating on this board, you cannot simultaneously prevent infection and mitigate symptoms.

With such a gaping hole in the core of the Vaccine Narrative, I decided to re-think the issue. There are two risks. Getting Covid vs. Serious Side Effect from therapy. That is a pretty easy exercise as the death toll is trumpeted on a daily basis by the main stream media. So I take the death figures (clearly inflated btw) at face value. The Death Odometer just flipped over a major number -- passing two tenths of one percent of the American Population. It is not so easy to find a public number of "serious" bouts, but I do know one person in real life who had a very rough go of it early in the pandemic. So, just as a way of clarifying the risk, I multiply the official death toll by a factor of five -- one percent chance of death or serious illness.

Hmmmm. All this hoopla about a one percent chance of real trouble? To avoid this risk you take the utterly unknown risk of taking this experiment. Utterly unknown.

As this past summer ground on, I saw that the public authorities were both lying about the facts and actively trying to silence skeptics.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned. There is no reason to trust either the pharmaceutical companies or the various governments of the world. So the burden is on the jab to sell itself to me.

Not buying.

This is not to say that I think, believe or imagine that the Side Effects will come. It is just that I have no confidence whatsoever that the current system is telling the truth about Side Effects.

Instead of worrying about what us plain old folks think or do about our decision on vaccination, I keep asking myself and anybody unfortunately within earshot of me, "Why would they lie about this shit so aggressively unless there is something really horrible hidden behind the lies?"

up
0 users have voted.

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

@wokkamile in the above post, apart from once again letting my keyboard-loving fingers get out of control, is that I had "Bill Parcells" as the Pats coach in the football analogy. Careful scholars of