Covid Update: Mandates, Data, Morality

Lately I’ve been harping on the significance of studies--especially one out of Israel--that show that “natural immunity” induced by prior infection with Covid is not only stronger but is overall greatly preferable to any protection offered by gene therapy ‘vaccines’. That’s without taking the risk of side effects into account. We’ve already seen the results of this new information--which, in fact, really only confirms standard textbook immunology--in law suits. Persons with established, confirmed, natural immunity are suing against the mandate to be vaccinated. As I’ve argued, we’re likely to see many more such suits, and now that there is new data out there that’s specific to Covid courts should be willing to listen.

Yesterday a story came out that confirmed what educated people had believed would turn out to be the case. This isn’t textbook immunology or vaccinology, but anecdotal evidence in combination with official data reporting was pointing the way to a conclusion that was well nigh inevitable. Today Zerohedge has a thorough report on this new information:

Study Finds Teenage Boys Six Times More Likely To Suffer Heart Problems From Vaccine Than Be Hospitalized by COVID

Research conducted by the University of California has found that teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems caused by the COVID-19 vaccine than to be hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 itself.

Bearing in mind that the “heart problems” in question, myocarditis, cause permanent damage to the heart, and given those odds, what sane parent would want their teenage son to be vaxxed? But guess what? Government policy isn’t made by sane parents. It’s made by insane, ideologically wacked bureaucrats who don’t care about you or your kids--as anyone who’s been following the news for the last several decades, at least, will know.

The research data was based on a study of adverse reactions suffered by teens between January and June this year.

In a sane world, such data should represent the nail in the coffin for the argument that teenagers and children should be mandated to take the coronavirus vaccine, but it obviously won’t.

In the UK, the government is pushing to vaccinate 12-15-year-olds, even without parental consent, despite the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advising against it.

Meanwhile, in America, Los Angeles County school officials voted unanimously to mandate COVID shots for all children over 12 despite angry objections from parents.

Look for this data to show up soon in lawsuits. More and more such data is coming out.

Now, I spent time yesterday trying to figure out the meaning of the latest vaccination surveillance data put out by the UK government. For the scientifically and statistically unsophisticated the data seemed puzzling. Briefly, what the data showed was this:

1. Between the ages of 40 - 79 (broken down into decades) those who have been vaxxed are more likely to be infected with Covid than those who are unvaxxed. In other words, the vaccines were significantly less effective in preventing infection than natural immunity.

2. Nevertheless, in terms of hospitalization and death, the outcomes for that age group showed that the vaxxed population did better than the unvaxxed.

What, I asked myself, is the big picture?

Today Karl Denninger offers that big picture: I Hate Being Right. We’ll start with KD’s graph, rather than columns of numbers--a picture is worth a thousand words:

This figure portrays the data for point #1, and you can clearly see that in the highlighted age groups the vaxxed are more likely to become infected than the unvaxxed. What data like this suggests is that the vaccines are interfering with relatively effective natural immunity in those age groups--bearing in mind that the younger age groups are also less likely to be vaxxed but also much more likely to have strong natural immunity, and no use for a vaccine. Thus the data also very strongly suggests that the vaccines are basically ineffective in preventing infection and transmission. Meaning:

This data shows conclusively that for anyone between 40 and 79 being vaccinated makes it more-likely for you to get Covid-19.

That means what you think it does: If you took the jabs you are the plague rat; you are more-likely to get (and thus transmit) the disease than an unvaccinated person.

Britain had studiously avoided publishing the ranged data like this in their updates until now. I don't know why they did it this time but it doesn't matter. Their data continues to claim that the jabs are effective in preventing hospitalization and death but the exact opposite is true when it comes to getting Covid-19 which means those who are vaccinated may acquire personal protection but in doing so become Angels of Death to others.

What KD means is that the vaxxed appear to be driving the spread of Covid to the unvaxxed, not the other way around. They are themselves better protected, but they’re personal protection is coming at the cost of greater risk to others.

First question: Would universal vaccination solve this problem? The answer is no, because in modern societies there are a lot of people who are not eligible for these vaccines, due to compromised immune systems. Those people are being put at risk by current policies--they’re being ‘targeted’ is another way of putting it. The question is, is there a tradeoff that makes this worthwhile? The answer, again, appears to be, No. Because the overall population wide risk from Covid remains extremely low--especially if patients receive early treatment, which governments are currently denying them. KD offers an example from the history of public health and vaccination:

For those who cannot be vaccinated (e.g. immune compromised where the jabs will not "take", for example) creating a mass of walking plague rats will kill those individuals at a materially higher rate. Public health is about the aggregate impact on the population. We made the decision to change the DTP vaccine in children to DTaP because, even though as the latter is non-sterilizing and thus occasionally caused an infant to get infected by his sibling and get very sick or die the aggregate harm was lower than that caused by the DTP vaccine across everyone, including those who needed tetanus boosters and could not get a stand-alone tetanus shot as they are not produced.

Next question: What does this mean for the future, and especially in light of what looks like relative effectiveness in preventing hospitalization and death? I can’t critique KD’s argument, which is based on data I haven’t seen. However, read his argument closely in light of what we’ve already seen:

The trend toward failure in preventing death is one of deterioration. While this has not yet accelerated greatly it likely will. This is due to two problems;

1. the sequencing in public databanks which suggests VEI is just a matter of time and

2. waning antibody titers over time.

These two are are very likely to combine in the months ahead and the probability of them doing so into the maw of flu season this winter is, by my estimation and previous timelines for mutation (e.g. Delta's emergence in said databanks to it becoming prevalent) is likely odds-on. If it happens those not previously infected but vaccinated are going to get slaughtered this winter given the above data. …

There is an argument for those who are specifically-morbid, which is correlated (but not caused) by age to take the jabs. But for those who are not morbid the data continues to show that while there is no such thing as a risk-free existence and this virus can and occasionally does get people without morbidity it almost-never kills or hospitalizes you. Mass-vaccinating the healthy, however, winds up killing those who cannot (not by choice, but by medical necessity) take said jabs.

...

The evidence is clear: While we should continue to make available said jabs any form of compulsion is in fact manslaughter since there is a reasonable contingent of persons who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated and thus cannot avail themselves of the option to be protected against hospitalization and death. In non-morbid people this protection is of little value since the base rate of harm is extremely low.

The reason that I quoted KD somewhat fully just above is because his public health considerations feed into our final topic: Morality. As KD makes clear, public health policy decisions are inseparable from very serious moral considerations. The mandating of vaccinations is far from and exception in this regard.

Catholic natural law moral philosophy has a track record of two millennia in formulating answers to tough questions. There are very few moral questions that are completely of first impression for the natural law tradition, and which have not been examined very carefully. Eric Sammons at Crisis addresses these questions and shows that

Vaccine Mandates Violate Catholic Moral Teaching

It’s important to note, however, that while Sammons specifies “Catholic” moral teaching--because he’s responding to “Catholic” vax enthusiasts--the principles involved are based not on Catholic theology but on natural reason that’s accessible to everyone.

So, he begins, tongue in cheek, but with an anti-prog jab:

Recently, I tweeted through the Crisis Magazine twitter account: “Vaccine Mandates are contrary to Catholic moral teaching.”

Based on the reaction, you’d think I suggested hanging puppies or that men can’t get pregnant.

He quickly disposes of the canard that this is an anti-vax position. Then he gets to the principles, and note how well these principles play with KD’s public health considerations:

Modern people tend to believe that if something is good, then it’s also good to mandate it. That attitude, however, is contrary to Catholic moral teaching, which is solidly founded upon the acceptance of human free will. Freedom is a fundamental moral principle. If someone does something that is an objectively wrong act, but is forced to do it, that mitigates and possibly even removes the sinfulness of the action. Likewise, if someone is forced to do something good, that also mitigates its moral goodness. Without freedom, there is no morality.

A mandate, by its very nature, restricts human freedom, and there are many types of mandates, including morally good mandates (a parent, for example, can and should mandate many things to his children). But when it comes to choices that involve prudential decisions, mandates are rarely, if ever, moral. This involves mandates coming from the State or private enterprises. While a State can put the threat of sanctioned violence behind its mandates, the university which mandates the vaccine in order to attend or employer who makes the vaccine a requirement for employment still violate human freedom.

Sammons turns again to his critics, but sums up as follows:

So what does the Church actually teach about vaccine mandates, including COVID-19 vaccine mandates? In the most recent official statement from the Vatican in December 2020, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explicitly states, “Practical reason makes evident that vaccination is not, as a rule, a moral obligation and that, therefore, it must be voluntary.”

It is not a moral obligation. It must be voluntary. Pretty clear-cut, no?

It’s also interesting that the CDF statement simply says that “practical reason makes evident” that vaccine mandates are wrong. In other words, this is part of the natural law of who we are as human beings: we are free to refuse a medical injection if we, through our use of reason, decide it is not best for us or the common good. It is simply common sense, the Vatican is saying.

Now, sadly, there are plenty of “Catholic” voices out there loudly supporting mandates, and there are even bishops imposing mandates on employees and clergy. Do not be confused. This is not in accordance with Catholic moral teaching--or any sound moral teaching. These traditional, millennia old, principles have stood the test of time. Use them when speaking to family and friends.