This is a wonderful article that breaks down the logic of why there is reason to oppose the opposing of mandates. The author, Dr. David Bell, shares why he did not sign a petition to which nearly 17,000 doctors and scientists have already added their signatures. These are men and women that Dr. Bell deeply respects but he could not support a document that opposes mandates based on people with natural immunity having better protection than those who chose to take the experimental COVID shots.
The reason I could not is fundamental to the current public health debate, and in skirting it with pure logic we are digging humanity’s grave for those who would bury us. We are free, or we are not. Science is not the arbiter of that freedom.
Our freedom is our birthright and is not tied to our medical condition, our medical choices or our medical histories.
Now the Covid-19 public health response is requiring injections as a prerequisite for adults and children to participate in normal community activities. ‘Vaccination status’ governs ‘access’ to basic human rights – the right to work, travel, socialize and access education – considered fundamental under the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
It can even govern the right to access healthcare. Medical coercion has emerged from the shadows. This is being fought with logic. Demonstrating the sheer absurdity of a general mandate for a disease that targets a well-defined population group (old age and comorbidities), that does nothing to stop spread (ie. no protection for others) and against which most are already better protected by natural immunity is an easy argument if people are listening.
Armed with such arguments, the growing movement opposing Covid-19 vaccine mandates, spanning truckers, restaurateurs, hospital employees and politicians, is making inroads in the rolling back of mandates in many countries, though this anti-science approach continues apace in others and, ironically, in many Western educational institutions. Only a desire for power, or deep ignorance, could justify such an approach.
It’s hard to for me to believe that there is an innocence to Western educational institutions. We are coming to understand how the Left has infiltrated the schools and universities in an effort to take power by controlling the culture. They know damn well these shots are not needed by young healthy individuals. They know they do not stop the spread. They are acting as puppets for the globalist agenda.
If we acknowledge that “all humans are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Article 1 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights), and that there is something intrinsically valuable about being ‘human,’ then a number of consequences must follow. These are reflected in the declarations on human rights developed after World War II and that also underlay the earlier Geneva convention. They are reflected in many religious beliefs, but not exclusive to them. Their codification after WWII reflected the realization that repeated compromise, specifically justified through a public health ‘common good,’ rapidly eroded society. The road to genocide was paved by doctors, who like all are prone to self-interest, fear and an ability to hate.
The alternative approach is to view humans merely as lumps of biology or a complex series of chemical reactions. In this case, an individual has no rights, and the future makes no real sense. This alternate approach makes all things rational, and nothing right or wrong. Picking some middle ground between the two – humans are a little bit special but that can be taken away when convenient (convenient to whom?) – does not stand well to deeper thought.
As I read this last paragraph, I am reminded of a conversation with an acquaintance who sees an unborn child as a clump of cells with no need for protection. This same individual also thought sacrificing a couple hundred thousand lives from vaccine death was ‘worth it’ for the greater good of the majority 😡. I can read about people who say these things or have these views, but it seems distant and far from being a reality. The tragedy is to personally know someone who has said such things which makes the concept that others actually harbor similar thoughts a reality.
Claiming natural immunity as a sole exclusion from vaccine mandates is no more logical than ignoring it. Immune members of older age groups are still at higher risk than the non-immune healthy young. Age-related risk varies several thousand fold, and neither vaccines nor natural immunity can bridge this gap. So how is fitness, age and likely exposure to be brought into the picture, and what is the justification for ignoring them? Do we mandate a young fit athlete to be jabbed because she happens to have avoided prior infection, whilst pretending an obese and diabetic retiree who survived a prior infection is exempt?
If we are to nuance the risk, what thresholds of age and fitness will be used, and who will set them? How will natural immunity be measured? What type of testing will be used and how frequently, at whose expense? Who will be naturally immune from the next declared pandemic and will vaccine mandates be more acceptable then if the vaccine is rushed out before many become naturally immune? Who even decides what is a pandemic and what is not? Are we fine with the bureaucrats at the World Health Organization determining our risk, based on their own interpretation of their own changing definitions?
To solely invoke natural immunity as a way out of mandates, we will be coercing testing and consequent medical procedures as a basis for freedom. This is not freedom. However well-meaning, it is on the slippery slope that leads elsewhere.
We all understand that the slippery slope is real. Our eyes have been opened quite wide to how just giving in a little to the demands of Leftists has lead to a society we do not even recognize.