Everyone is being presented with a menu of COVID-19 vaccines, and they have to choose one. The best one to choose is the first one offered to you. The vaccines are different and have different concerns, but this is a consequence of the practical reality of distributing a vaccine to everyone in a short period of time. Multiple suppliers are needed to produce and distribute the product. An argument may be made that any single one of these products could have been the only product available and if the capacity was sufficient, everyone would be directed to take that one. Effectively there is only one, the first one that is offered to a recipient. The recipient should not complain because the one offered could have been the only one approved.
The vaccines are qualitatively different. Although everyone will presumably be vaccinated from the virus, the population will divide into groups depending on which vaccine they happened to take.
An analogy that comes to mind is buying a car in order to get to work. For them, getting a car is essential for the commute. Consider the situation where the person’s old car is wrecked beyond repair. The person needs to get a car quickly. There may be multiple choices, but due to time constraints, the choices are limited to the dealerships nearby and the cars they have in stock. Of all the possible cars to buy, he will end up buying from a more limited selection of what is on the lot.
Once he buys that car, he becomes an owner of a particular make and model of car. The car serves its purpose to resume commuting to work. In traffic and in parking lots, he will be surrounded by cars of different makes and models each driven by owners of those makes and models. Inevitably, there is at least a brief moment of judgement that occurs based on the car one happens to be driving. Another driver may find comfort in being near a car in his list approved vehicles, and distain being near a car in his list of vehicles that should not be on the road.
Consider again the person who had to pick out a car quickly based on what was on the lot. He now has to deal with the consequence of that choice, and in particular the consequence of not having the full range of choices that could be possible if he could have waited for an order or arranged a visit to a more distant dealer. One of the consequences could be a manufacturer recall that at a minimum would require taking time to get the issue fixed at a particular location. Another consequence may be some other design flaw that it could be dangerous but the manufacturer is arguing that the problem is not that bad or does not occur frequently enough to require a recall. Perhaps eventually the manufacturer would issue a recall, but there may be many months or years before that happens, and during that time the owner needs to adapt to a concern that was not what he agreed to when he bought the car.
The person merely wanted a private car as the only option to meet his particular transportation needs. The car he purchases is more than means of transport. He has the identity of being the owner and driver of that particular vehicle. He also has to tolerate the vehicle deficiencies that only appeared long after the purchase.
Assuming that the car is not a safety hazard that could injure someone, the car purchase has risks primarily in financial terms. For an individual, a car purchase is a major financial burden, so this risk comes with considerable stress. He has insurance to help cushion the financial impact, but there will remain a risk of a substantial loss if something were to go wrong. Certainly, something will go wrong with someone in the group who purchased the same kind of car. It is mostly a matter of chance as to who will need to deal with the financial impact.
There are many similarities with the current push to vaccinate everyone. In many cases, people are finding they need to get a vaccine in order to continue working, at least to remain in good standing for their prospects of future promotion. This is especially intense within the health care field. In order to meet this new requirement, the worker has to pick the first vaccine offered and take it immediately once offered. From that moment onwards, the worker changes status from the unvaccinated to the vaccinated, but also acquires a status of having one particular’s manufacturer’s vaccine.
Near term, the worker may find comfort in having the approved status and also in preservation of the job security. This is a very short period of time.
The first thing that will change is that there will now be a distinction between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This is a new consideration we never had to consider when meeting or interacting with other people. Now, when meeting someone new we will first ask whether they are vaccinated, perhaps even before introducing the name. If the two people do not have the same status, there will be a tension that never existed before.
Already, there are reports that some people are having specific problems with vaccines from a particular manufacturer. These problems may be rare, but there is wide publication of both the nature of the problem and of the name of the vaccine. For people who are not affected by the problem, their discussions will now have to include whether they had that particular vaccine and whether they had any problems. Privately, they will become more alert to anything that might indicate they too are having some kind of problem.
Unlike in the car ownership example where the risk was primarily financial, the vaccine’s risk is with one’s health. Some adverse reactions are so severe they can no longer work despite the fact that the only reason they took the vaccine was so that they could continue to work. If a person knew he would no longer be able to work, he’d probably opt to instead avoid the vaccine so that he can spend that idle time without the adverse effects of the vaccine.
I’m certain we do not know the full extent of the long terms adverse reactions to the vaccines. There will be future stories of even more frightening conditions either due to the severity or due to the frequency. Each time, the vaccinated population will segregate between those whose vaccine choices were fortunate or unfortunate.
I especially dread seeing this happening. News of there being a wrong vaccine to have taken will lead to segregation between those unfortunate to be in that group and those fortunate to have been given a different vaccine. Even if the vaccines did solve the COVID19 issue, this social segregation by vaccine-types is going to be awful.
Already we are seeing social segregation by whether one had an adverse reaction to the vaccine. There seems to be an immediate judgement on the person for having the adverse reaction. The person must have had some underlying condition that made it happen. Another judgement is similar to that of betrayal as if having an adverse reaction were a deliberate choice of disobedience.
The widespread vaccinations started to recently for the longer term and perhaps more prevalent adverse reactions to start to become noticed. In my personal opinion, I expect there will be a decline in reproductive rates especially for women, either through lower rates of fertility or higher rates of miscarriage. Even the contemplating of this is heartbreaking. I also believe there will be an increase in chronic issues that will require constant medical attention for the remainder of their lives. Among the chronic issues will be neural-muscular issues that would be severely debilitating if the condition is not life threatening.
All of the people who have these adverse reactions will mostly be on their own. The woman who is not able to have more children is left alone to deal with this issue. The person who’s condition has degenerated to the point of not being able to work or even live independently is left alone to deal with this new reality.
I am optimistic that the vast majority of the vaccinated will not have these issues. There will be plenty of them to continue the economy and the creation of the next generation. As with most things in modern culture, the majority will go on living their lives, doing things that happen to not even encounter the people who had adverse reactions.
Women unable to have children will not be frequently school events or other children activities that bring mothers together.
People unable to work will not be in the work place, and they will not be in the recreational areas either because they can’t afford it, or they are physically incapable.
I expect we will see something like the old-time leper colonies, only this would be communities who gather together due to their common adverse reactions that prevent them from associating with people who had no adverse reactions. These people will have to work together to help each other out. The wider population will not accommodate their demand for constant assistance. Given the current trends, the wider population may not even tolerate the presence of those who had adverse reactions.
Currently medicine has not acknowledged vaccines are responsible for most of the rapid onset of conditions or deaths closely following vaccinations. Bafflingly, the medical profession is granting the presumption of safety on a vaccine, placing all the burden on proving that they are not safe. There is increasing evidence for the risks but it will require more time and analysis to establish a cause and effect. The current approach requires this case to be made individually for the multitude of conditions observed. Even if science can confidently tie one of these conditions to the vaccine, that says nothing about the remaining conditions. Science must show a link for each case individually.
I do not understand this approach. The vaccine is a very invasive form of medicine involving an injection directly into tissue, bypassing the normal defenses of the skin. The injection involves a considerable volume of material introduced as high pressure. The tissue in that area will be drowning in whatever is being injected. It is the intention of the vaccine design that the injection would overwhelm any local defenses in the area. This will provoke a wider immune response while the mRNA material finds its way into cells to start producing something for the immune response to attack.
My observation is that the injection is a fluid that once injected can migrate anywhere in the body. The injection is not exactly the same for each person. Some injections will be closer to veins, others will be closer to arteries. Some injections may go straight into a punctured vein or artery. Other people may have fattier tissue that will allow the material to linger at body temperature without doing anything until much later. These are vaccines that normally must be stored at very cold temperatures for some reason, probably because they can become dangerous after degrading at higher temperatures. This is likely occurring but where the storage is inside the body instead of in a vial. In addition, this prolonged storage could be for an extended period of time.
I could go on with further speculations, but my broader point is that there is likely to be a wide variation in how each person receives an injection. Some may get it in a place that will lead to adverse reactions to anyone who received in the exact same stop. I watched videos of nurses administering the shots, there is just a general vicinity to poke the needle and a loose range of depths of insertion. Also the patients range from very lean to very fat. Some are getting the injection directly into lean material and probably very close to the bone, while others are getting injected far from either lean tissue or bone. The simple practice of giving the injection introduces variations that must result in differences in people’s reactions to the vaccine. The entire practice is very imprecise.
I heard talk about breeding mosquitos to have vaccine material in their saliva so when they bite a person, that person would get the benefit of the vaccine. A mosquito can bite anywhere and can bite for a wide variety of time depending on how long it takes the victim to notice. It appears science is seriously considering this option, and it makes sense. The current injection protocols are not that much more selective than a mosquito bite.
I truly worry about our future society that will follow this current madness. We will see vaccine-injured people segregating into communities of self-help because they have no other choice. The broader process will become callous toward them, especially as time passes and new concerns. I doubt medicine will ever take responsibility for what is clearly a consequence of bad medicine. Instead, everyone will just want the vaccine-injured to just disappear. They accomplished the greater good of their enjoying good health.
This COVID19 episode starting with the first reports of the virus more than year ago has consistently pitted one part of the population against another. At first it was the obligation on the young to sacrifice their freedoms in order to protect someone else’s grandparents, many of those are in nursing homes and haven’t seen their grand children in ages. Later it became a need for everyone to obey restrictions because even a single death from this singular cause is too many deaths, never mind any normal year has about a higher than 1% death rate from all causes. People’s life expectancy is less than 80, so that must mean about 1 out of 80 of us will die each year from anything. We cannot tolerate any death from whatever is causing COVID19 disease.
One of the early statistics about this disease was that it was affecting older people far more than it was younger people. It was to the extent where the very youngest had virtually no risk for the disease. While not mentioned explicitly, our reaction directly divided the population between the young and the old. The young must sacrifice their liberties and their developing their own futures in order to protect the lives of old people who have already passed the prime of their lives.
Another early observation was that the disease was affecting men much more than women. While both would get ill, it was the men who were more likely to die. In this post, I am just reflecting on what I recall hearing, I may be wrong. If this is correct, we began a path that asked women to sacrifice for the sake of men, and old men in particular. This is an outstanding reversal of normal practice that with good reason expect that men to do the sacrificing. In other words, we had a choice and we chose to burden the women for the sake of saving men.
The first burden on women came in the form of demanding their social isolation, social-distancing, and other restrictions. Even among older women, most would survive the illness. They sacrificed their liberty to keep old men from dying. To the extent these men would be their husbands, many of these husbands would object to this reversal of expectations. This would be especially true for the men from an older generation. I am not saying every man will feel this way, but it is a culturally accepted thing for men to prioritize saving women before themselves.
This first mistake foreshadowed the amplified version we are seeing now where vaccine injures are much more prevalent among women of all ages than they are of men. The greater good argument that accepts some injuries to save larger numbers is largely ignoring the fact that the injuries are primarily among women. Due to the nature of the targeted spike protein, women are higher risks in terms of lost reproductive capability. Also perhaps due to their physiology including at the injection site, they are also more at risk of other adverse effects. The injection contains something that is supposed to be stored in freezing conditions, but that something instead get stored at body temperature temporarily sequestered in fatty tissue instead of a glass vial.
So far the number of injured is small. How small is debatable. So far, the medical profession is satisfied that the injury rate is a few per million. There is evidence that the actual rate may be 100 times higher but it will probably take years for science to settle on this number. Even it the worse rate is accurate, a few cases per ten thousand will be deemed acceptable. It is for the greater good.
Excluding vaccines, lawsuits or regulations would force off the market any other manufactured product with similar injury rates. Vaccines are special because they claim to provide a good. Vaccines will save lives, just like primitive cultures expected that the blood sacrifice of young people would bring good fortune from their gods. No one can argue against the sincere belief that the attempt could bring good fortune to the greater population.
We are in a situation that requires making a choice. We desperately want no more people to die from this one disease in particular. To accomplish this, we need to ask for the cooperation of the population including those who are not at risk of the disease affecting them or anyone in their lives. This cooperation requires the voluntary forfeiture of their liberty and even of their development in careers or in starting families.
The propaganda emphasizes this shared stake with slogans such as “we are all in this together” or “together we can beat this thing”. The slogans obscure a deeper fact that we are not all facing the same risks and the same sacrifices.
The risks of the disease is primarily among the older population, many past the population life-expectancy. Among this population, men are at higher risk than women.
The government dictated responses requires sacrifices among the younger generations, and women in particular. Social distancing and other restrictions are preventing young people to develop their careers and to start their families. This impacts women more than men because of their short fertility window. The current vaccinations come with risks to populations least at risk of the disease itself. These risks are much higher for women than for men, especially after considering risks to reproductive health and possible damage to their children either during gestation or with this vaccine being added to the dozens of other vaccines we somehow have decided is necessary for human life on this planet.
Situations like this one requires decision makers to weigh the benefits and risks of the different choices. Either choice will result in one portion of population suffering more than another portion of the population. The current objective is to choose the option that affects the fewest number of people no matter what demographic they belong. We are opting to benefit older people, and perhaps primarily old men. For this we ask the young people to sacrifice their futures. Their sacrifices will be poorer prospects for their future careers and possibly even their future being free of chronic health conditions. Perhaps the largest burden in on this will be the young women now eagerly taking the vaccine that will injure many of them directly, or indirectly by affecting their ability to have healthy babies.
We must make policy choices in terms of what will provide the greater good. We have not debated the criteria of measuring that greater good. It is childish to measure that good in terms of raw numbers of deaths or injuries. We must confront the demographic differences of the various options. I personally do not want to sacrifice the future of the younger people and young women in particular for the sake of protecting old men who are past the population’s life expectancy.
In this blog site, I frequently discussion my own fantasy government that I called a dedomenocracy. One key feature of this government is that instead of asking the population to democratically choose policy, it asks the population to demographically define how to measure the greater good. When some future crisis occurs, what does the population prioritizes and what is the population willing to sacrifice. In such a government, I can not imagine that we would agree to sacrifice our younger people (and especially not our young women) for the benefit elderly people (and especially not old men). We do not live in a dedomenocracy.