There is some serious cognitive dissonance in the argument for mandatory vaccinations.
I can understand people believing one or the other of these political talking points. What I can’t grasp is so many people simultaneously believing both. These 2 thoughts are the very definition of “mutually exclusive.”
- There is a “Pandemic of the unvaccinated”
- “We must protect vaccinated workers from their unvaccinated co-workers”
Do I need to even say it? If the pandemic is limited to the unvaccinated, then what exactly do the vaccinated need protection from? For the record, I know both taking points are pure BS.
The only scientifically literate justification for mandatory vaccination would be if unvaccinated people were spreading the virus more readily than their vaccinated counterparts.
The jury is in. Not guilty on all counts.
NBC news: ‘The internal CDC presentation concluded that, “breakthrough infections may be as transmissible as unvaccinated cases.”’
NPR: ‘It also found no significant difference in the viral load present in the breakthrough infections occurring in fully vaccinated people and the other cases, suggesting the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with the coronavirus is similar.’
See Figure 2: the CDC box and whisker chart for yourselves (hope I’m not banned for sharing CDC “misinformation”). There is zero statistical difference in the viral load between the vaccinated and unvaccinated.
So the only scientifically rational argument for mandatory vaccinations has been shredded by none other than the CDC. I guess since NBC news, NPR, and the CDC are all “right wing extremist sites,” we may need to take their conclusions with a grain of salt…
Last, let’s go over the clinical trials again: Pfizer, Moderna, and J&J only looked at safety, tolerability, immunogenicity, and efficacy. Transmissibility was never even considered, let alone measured.
Everyone arguing for mandatory vaccinations has the sum total of exactly zero data to support the assertion that unvaccinated people are any more of a threat to them than vaccinated people.
Maybe the argument is coming from compassion: “We care so deeply about you dying of COVID we’re going to fire you from your job so you can be homeless and starving.”
Finally, during the time of the clinical trials, the vaccines were given a 95% efficacy rating. During that time, the only vaccinated people in the entire country were the participants in the trial who did not get the placebo.
So we’ve gone from “95% efficacy against an entirely unvaccinated population” to “We need the entire population to be vaccinated for this thing to work” in less than 8 months.
And nobody is calling BS on this? Really? Is this where we are?
And people ask me why I’ve lost all respect for “public health officials.” And the overwhelming majority of doctors who know better but are unprepared to deal with the consequences of telling the truth. Might be too inconvenient not towing the line. Go along to get along. I get it.
I may be acting too harshly: There is serious confirmation bias on both sides of vax debate. It’s just that only one side of it is barred from public discussion, may be fired from their jobs, are ridiculed and called stupid by many people whose depth of knowledge on the subject stops at “safe and effective = the science.”
There’s also a deep psychological need to not change your mind about something you’re strongly believed. See here for my theory on that.
I’m not just an “Anti-vaxxer.” I’m a rabid Anti-Statiner as well if I may coin a new pejorative. If I had the Guinness Book of World Records highest cholesterol ever measured, I’d still never take a Statin drug.
Nobody needs a medical degree to understand the results of a clinical trial. Nobody needs an engineering degree to understand a DVP&R. All one needs is a basic understanding of statistics. Get one for free on the internet – then click down in the links for the actual story.
The largest mistake people make about the news is that they are the news’ customers. No. The advertisers are the ones who keeps the lights on there. You are only a news consumer, not a customer. Big difference.
“Today on the News: Stories to keep you terrified brought to you by advertisers who promise to make all that terror go away.”
How long do you reckon a news outlets #1 provider of ad revenue is going to continue with them questioning their products? To ask is to answer. Piper. Tune. You know the thing.