Vaccine Mandates

Way back when all this started, I 'went in' and locked down well before the government mandated it. At the time it seemed the appropriate thing to do, and so I did it without needing anyone to tell me. I greatly resented it, however, when the governor followed up with an order telling me to do what I'd already decided to do, and daring to assert legal threats should I stop doing what I'd already begun on my own. 

Likewise, I reasoned months ago to the conclusion that my work would eventually require me to be vaccinated. Simply should international travel be required, it was obviously going to be necessary; and working with the military, as I often do, was going to require it because it was clear that the military was going to require the vaccine for all servicemembers. I accept that I have a moral duty to provide for my family, and thus to run the hazards required to do the work I know how to do. My ancestors accepted risks to their lives and health to provide for their wives and children, whether from livestock or from mining, and so too must I. Should I die, I have life insurance; but I cannot live and be useless to those who have a right to depend on me. 

Once again, the government is coming behind to threaten and bully, trying to force people like me to do what I already decided to do and did do. They can go hang. 

It is commonly remarked that the Supreme Court decided this vaccine issue a long time ago. This history is misunderstood on two levels, but I also think it is irrelevant for an additional reason. First, the Supreme Court decided that states might issue mandates on vaccines, not the Federal government. Second, and more, what they really decided was that states might fine you for refusing a vaccine -- not that you must in fact be required to take one. (The fine, in the famous case, was five dollars.) 

Yet more importantly, the whole philosophical understanding of the American people on this issue has undergone a fundamental transformation. In the Progressive Era, the Wise who sit on high courts believed that government and its experts might properly sterilize you if they thought you were unfit to breed. They thought themselves wise enough to order every aspect of your life better than you could, and thus ordering you to accept injections or hysterectomies was aligned with their sense of what right looked like. Buck v. Bell was just such a case; and this mindset led to eugenics, the Tuskegee experiments, numerous secret psychological experiments on the American people, and abroad many of the worst horrors of the 20th century. 

Today the American people have adopted a very different moral standard: self-ownership, which is often described as 'my body, my choice.' The abortion debate turns on this understanding, with the two sides either affirming that a woman has an absolute right to abortion because her body is affected, or else that the right might be fettered because in fact there is another human's body that will be affected -- indeed destroyed -- by the procedure. The issue here is the same one; one's refusal of a vaccine might possibly affect others, though (unlike in the abortion case) it is ultimately your own body that is going to be definitively altered by the experience. 

Indeed, the differences in the cases are on the side of rejecting the mandates. Abortion always kills a human being; a refusal to take a vaccine may never kill one, and indeed probably will not. You worsen your own odds of serious illness, but even if you were vaccinated you would still be capable of becoming sick and transmitting this to others; thus, you are taking on the extra risks yourself, rather than pushing them off onto another from whose death you hope to benefit in some way. 

Thus, the principle governing our contemporary understanding -- self-ownership -- makes this act an affront. The attempt to launder it through the private sector rather than taking responsibility for doing it does not make it better but worse. The attempt to evade Constitutional restrictions on Federal power by using corporate power as the state's agent is fascist in the literal and proper sense of the word. 

Therefore, though I have already done the thing they wanted done and these mandates affect me not at all, I utterly reject them. They are improper, unacceptable, and a violation of our moral order. Anyone who wishes to defy them ought to do so, and we should support their defiance as we are able. 

9 comments:

  1. Hear, hear.

    I wanted the vaccine and got it the first instant I could. Then I did everything I could to assist my friends and neighbors to get access to it as well, until we reached the point where pretty much everyone who thought it was a good idea had already gotten it. After that I left people to make their own decisions, knowing that their choices might not lead to the most favorable possible world from my perspective--just as I'm always obligated to do except in quite clear cases of fraud or violence.

    Sometimes I just think people never had as much power to reason as I once assumed. The last year and a half has seemed delirious.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You worsen your own odds of serious illness....

    A couple thoughts on that. One is by how much do you worsen the odds--of your own or someone else--of serious illness? Here are some CDC data, cited in a different context:

    The [CDC] study monitored incident of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in 13 US jurisdictions during two periods between April 4 and July 17 in 2021. Findings showed that numbers for all categories were "substantially" higher in persons not fully vaccinated compared with those in fully vaccinated people.

    After the second period, which occurred between June 20 and July 17, the study noted that not fully vaccinated individuals are 4.5 times more likely to get infected (89.1 per 100,000 vs 19.4), 10 times more likely to be hospitalized (7.0 per 100,000 vs 0.7) and 11 times more likely to die (1.1 per 100,000 vs 0.1) from the delta variant.


    Those two periods coincide with the onset and growth of the Delta variant as the dominant, and supposedly more dangerous, form of the Wuhan virus.

    I recast those data to a different understanding, with a different emphasis; hopefully my arithmetic isn't too far off: the rates for the fully vaccinated getting infected, being hospitalized, or dying are 0.0194%, 0.0007%, and 0.0001%, respectively.

    The corresponding rates for the unvaccinated are 0.0891%, 0.007%, and 0.0011%, respectively.

    It's curious that the CDC chose to emphasize the fact that, arithmetically, the rates for the unvaccinated are 4.5 times, 10 times, and 11 times greater than for the vaccinated rather than the fact that the raw numbers clearly show that even those multiples of almost zero still are right next to zero.

    The Wuhan Virus just isn't that dangerous, but that simple fact contradicts the Progressive-Democrat administration's narrative and gives the lie to their claim of a need for mask and vaccine mandates.

    The vaccine does produce those improvements, and I continue to recommend it, but as with most of my advice, the cost of not heeding my words is…right next to zero.

    The other thought is this: in those early days, I, too, got vaccinated; although I held off until supplies were ubiquitous, since I'm fundamentally healthy to begin with. My wife, also fundamentally healthy, remains unvaccinated. Were the option functionally available to me today, I also would refuse the vaccine, on principle, even though I still hold that it provides some benefit, and that especially does it benefit those with serious comorbidities.

    However, Government's mandates have nothing to do with the health of us citizens; they have everything to do with Progressive-Democrat control. After all, the mandates are not about freedom or personal choice, and unfortunately, as a country, we have experience in dealing with exemptions….

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  3. ymarsakar12:24 AM

    It is a bio toxin and also bio weapon, as i said exactly here February 28th, 2020.

    When one creates a bio weapon and releases it, it is known that the response will be a waxxine. Those that know this, will have already developed a waxxine, hence why Pfizer and Moderna could output their genetic tailoring tech so quickly.

    So Corona was designed with 10-15% lethality in mind. enough to herd stampede people off a cliff into fear, and Obedience to Totalitarian governments.

    But in order for the Georgia Guidestone 500 million (something I also warned people about here often) to be realistic, they need to kill off billions. That's with a b.

    How are they going to reduce the world population? As gates and others have said, they will reduce it with waxxines and healthcare.

    In other words, sterilizations and binary bio toxins. The waxxine, specifically the mRNA bio weapon, uses the computer genreated code of the Corona, which COVID 19 has never been isolated. Covid Certification of Waxxination ID, is merely designed to get people to inject themselves with the real or secondary stage bio weapon. THis bio weapon then has a 100% kill rate against animals, on the second infection of wild Corona strand.

    Things starting to connect themselves yet?

    ReplyDelete
  4. ymarsakar12:26 AM

    The reason why God doesn't let me talk about this before now, except some minor hints I persume everyone forgot about in a month, is because this is a Test. And I am not allowed the "spoil" the test by telling people the answers.

    COVID is a kind of mark. Where you need it to buy and sell. That should sound a little bit more familiar.

    All the false prophets that came before me, are now suddenly obedient and quiet, due to their tax exemption status and indoctrination on western medicine. I don't hear them talking about this mark as they did all the other times.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another take on your essay, Grim, springs from the concept of "common good"--an oft mis-used term.

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/tyrannizing-the-common-good/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Supposedly these vaccines contain Graphene nano particles. These particles aim at your white blood cells causing an immuno-response. These particles are toxic and are an ingredient in every one of the vaccines.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The issue here is not even about whether the vaccines are 'safe' or 'effective'; it's about the moral principles at work. Grant arguendo that they are both safe and effective; that does not mean the government ought to have the power it is claiming, or that citizens can morally surrender to being forced in this way (even if, as for me, they would choose the same course independently).

    The question is not utilitarian, that is, it is not about the ends, and whether they justify the means. It's not about whether the mandates might save lives or cost them. The question is one of moral duty.

    Since I was a young man I have believed in the motto "Death Before Dishonor." Our moral duty is to pass the liberties and a defense of natural rights on to our children and the next generation. We cannot let that down, not even if it kills us. That is what our honor requires, and that is what we must do.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The graphene oxide allegations seem pretty sketchy to me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ymarsakar12:27 PM

    2 months.

    Doctor of death faucism vs the healers that did no harm taking a risk talking about graphene oxide. Only a minor ingredient in the toxic dosage.

    Who will humanity believe? Lrts wait and see. Zombie apoc incoming.

    ReplyDelete