The real calculus is quite straightforward, Andreas. If the sum of all uptake-related injuries is greater than zero, mandating uptake is a deliberate injury, full stop.
I have discussed this with many who advocate coercion, their argument consisting of "it's a public duty and safe and effective." The response I have given is that the only comparison we have, is that of being drafted to fight and die in a war. We honor fallen soldiers, those who died that others might live. To deny the cause of so many deaths caused by the experimental injections, is to heap dishonor on those who chose death to save the lives of others.
I realize that most of those who died from the injections were not informed of the deadly risks involved with volunteering for mass human trials of a substance that killed most of the animals that it was tested on during early stages of development. The dishonest withholding of informed consent, makes those deaths a form of murder, rather than acts of noble self-sacrifice.
holding Nuremburg 2.0 trials is what must be done.
To add insult to injury, they died without saving anybody and protecting anything, quite the opposite: they died for naught, also hurting their lowed ones by their untimely departure, and contributing to the murderous totalitarian campaign by being the useful idiots that further the nefarious cause.
The draft analogy addresses two aspects of the argument for coercion, Datagal; social or legal compulsion, and exposure to risk of physical and mental injury. The latter includes permanent or intractably persistent internal changes, with stress disorders being the familiarity. By familiarity, I mean that every analogy must refer to something with which both speaker and listener are familiar.
What has made the current situation so difficult to resolve is the multivariate nature of responses to it and affects from it. At its root is an infectious pathogen, the response to which was planned for. That plan was discarded, in favor of a terror-inspiring campaign that was extremely cynical and opportunistic. The terror campaign opened the door for opportunism of various sorts. Each opportunistic sub-campaign takes advantage of a different aspect of human weakness.
When we try to find a unifying analogy, we run up against the familiarity problem. The "let's punish people" campaign is understandable to folks familiar with the Milgram experiment. The "let's conduct a mass human experiment without disclosure" campaign has aspects of the Tuskegee experiment. Relatively few people are familiar with those experiments.
To be useful, an analogy must be evocative. It's pointless to use Milgram and Tuskegee in an analogy if the people one is addressing are unfamiliar with them.
The "duty, safe and effective" argument is evocative, which is to say; it relies on familiarity with the underlying premise. "Don't kill grandma" is a universally shared premise. A Pfizer spokesperson recently offered an apologia consisting of a seemingly nonsensical analogy; "we were working at the speed of science."
But is it nonsensical?
Only to those who think of science as a method of thinking. The majority do not think of science in that fashion. "The speed of science" is actually a very clever invocation, one based on a widely understood human weakness; vulnerability to the logical fallacy of false comparison.
If we pause for a moment and indulge ourselves with a thought experiment, we begin to appreciate the cleverness of that false comparison and its degree of effectiveness. Mentally, how do we, and everyone we know, complete this description; "the speed of......." what?
Speaking as a grandpa who is rather grateful that "don't kill grandma" is a widely shared moral stricture, I find "the speed of....." an interesting evocation because of the context. As a child, I (along with everyone else) was enchanted by the newly-broken sound barrier. Before the moon shot and popular acceptance of science fiction (before Star Trek,) We would have concluded our little thought experiment as "the speed of sound." That was fast, very fast and it meant "in a great hurry."
But all it meant was fast.
Nowadays, the common response is going to be "the speed of.... light." Now, we have a much wider chain of associations. What subliminal mental imagery do we associate with "Light?"
Clever, no?
Please forgive the lengthy reply, Datagal, but I'm trying to share the difficulty I've encountered with finding a truly comprehensive analogy, one encompassing enough of the myriad aspects of the deception and coercion deployed over the last few years.
Many, including myself, have resorted to referencing "The Great Evils" of historical totalitarianism; Fascism and Communism," hence the "Nuremberg 2.0." This can be counterproductive in one sense, because overuse renders it seemingly hyperbolic in the minds of those who are innocent of the details surrounding the lockdowns and injections.
I suppose that what I'm saying is that no one analogy is "bulletproof," and we have to offer different analogies in response to different aspects of today's great terror campaign, depending on the point of view shared by our interlocutors.
Your observation is astute and, if you can craft a comprehensive analogy, I'd be thankful if you shared it with me.
It's a fundamental question, Napoleon. You are rightly touching on an analogy that isn't fully applicable to the current situation, however evocative it may be.
I read your substack article and found it interesting and well-written. I could make a valiant attempt to compare the widening awareness of the public to the conquering and occupying forces that precipitated and conducted the Nuremberg trials, but that leads to ever more strained attempts to find comparators at increasingly fine levels of resolution, so I'll stick with that one analogy.
We have prosecutors and judges that are capable of doing the work, but their actions must be supported by a universal awareness of the crimes that have been committed. Stretching the point quite a bit, I'll offer a hypothesis that it is people like our good host Andreas that are avatars of a modern day Benjamin Ferencz.
Andreas and others are amassing the evidence. As the evidence accumulates, it becomes an increasingly powerful stimulus, one that activates a visceral response within the hearts and minds of every person that values honesty and justice.
As that response widens among the citizenry, it approaches a critical mass that oversees the actions of our judicial systems. In one sense, we might think of our justice systems as "watchers," in the sense of watching over human interaction with the object being a peaceful resolution of conflict.
The answer to the question "who watches the watchers" is, ultimately, "all of us, together."
The world has many justice systems. They are composed of humans, and all of human foible and frailty applies to the individuals that, together, form those systems.
I'm going to offer another hypothesis; that justice will begin within one of those systems, and that the very human instinct toward herd behavior will lend enough courage to the individuals within other systems, for them to follow suit.
I am not advocating for blind faith or complacency. My purpose it to suggest that we must avoid the trap of falling victim to propaganda that would have us surrender to fatalistic nihilism, trapped within learned helplessness.
WOW! This is a commentary I will be reading MANY times! This is “outta the ballpark”!
Now when people inquire why my bf and I aren’t working, or why we aren’t at our previous jobs, I’ll have some excellent replies and reasons (not that I need any).
I lost (forced early retirement) my career of 23 years, and he lost his career of 17 years-NO JAB!
I’m a logical person, usually, and this is a fantastic commentary on the “vaccine”, which is NOT a vaccine.
Yep imho lol Seriously though (and I do have somewhat twisted mind)
unless those women were in fear for their lives...we've seen them happily smiling in public in a friendly embrace with Harvey. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the glorious #me too the H/wood would've kept going the way it had from the very beginning, and everyone seemed to be happy. But you're right, it's not the same here where a person was put between rock and the hard place, lubricated by fear and persuaded by
So this is a pretty simple case study. One must believe that the "vaccines" have these properties or it all comes unraveled. Next , they must NOT see the harms that the mandates and fascism have wrought.
Thank you very much for this excellent important discussion. The hypothetical scenario you include is useful and I predict will stop a few in their track of virtue signaling. It is now more than 18 months, since this brilliant Kowalik treatise was published in The Journal of Medical Ethics’. It has since been a long time in this journey of violation of basic human rights. Clearly these journals are read by nobodies. It would behove any educated moral reader of this journal of ‘medical ethics’ (currently an oxymoronic term) to act courageously and quickly to stop the global mandate regime in its tracks. A readership of ‘nobodies’ it seems.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Mandates continued.
I sent a concise summary of the Kowalik treatise to a psychiatrist relation in late 2021. Crickets. Xmas was coming. It was very clear to me then, that these key concepts of ‘preserving the constitutive conditions of (human)) agency’ and the importance of the preservation of ‘the innate human constitution’ are nothing more than entertainment for so called ‘intellectuals’. Nothing to do with medicine.
As most physicians seem to be incapable of logical reasoning, it is unreasonable to expect from them to even begin to comprehend Kowalik. On the other hand, this crowd can start pushing the issue. As does Julie Ponesse. And Sage Hanna. Hopefully Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, Mike Yeadon, Rebert Mallone, etc., etc., etc. The medical issues are obvious by now. We have to start hitting home the message that the ethics of this whole affair is all wrong, unacceptable, and never to be attempted again.
Yes. I agree completely. Attention is so easily diverted. This Kowalik statement should sink this inflated Neurath medical boat and all their hubris..
“Since body-autonomy is a constitutive condition of our existence as conscious rational agents and is also a necessary condition of a life worth living, it is as valuable as life. “
My advice to fight vaccine mandates would be to fight the ethics of it and not the science that motivated it. Fighting mandates by denying that vaccines didn't prevent infections implies that one day if we find some such thing it would be permissible to mandate it then.
1. If your vaccine is effective , why do I need it to protect you?
2. If your vaccine is INEFFECTIVE, why I do I need it?
3. Do you insist that other couples use protection in order to protect you?
4. Do you insist horny couples don't get laid because you are not getting any?
5. Do you tell others to wash before they go outside?
6. Do gym junkies insist that other people do the same?
7. Do you insist that people don't drive in order to reduce pollution for you?
8. Do you understand the key principle of public health? (Govts need to focus on the totality of the public health, not focusing on one disease to the exclusion of the rest.)
They did not look stressed. Were happy to wear it.
"Double the protection" as one woman answered me.
What puzzles me is that they could see those around them maskless and not wondered why not!
It is mean of me to inwardly smirked that some of them would have given me the Karen/Kevin eyes if they could. In fact, one guy in 2020 angrily spat a f-bomb in my direction as he walked on!
One simplification is that vaccine maximalism harms people who already have cross-immunity. That's always and everywhere a large group. It also severely harms people who have undiscovered or unacknowledged vulnerabilities to vaccine injury—another significant group.
Good work Andreas, and I would humbly offer, and I'm sure our Founding Fathers would agree, that the core issue here is the unalienable right of the individual vs. the artificially manufactured right of the collective. ~ Thanks, "I'll be here all da week."
And the court declared that Jacobson pay a 5$ fine for not being vaccinated (about 150$ lately - before inflation took off). They didn't haul him off and vaccinate him.
There is a simplistic way to wake people up on this, by turning the tables! All of the following are high risk groups for catching and spreading Covid, and more besides! So based on the science (but also partially in jest), I'd say we can argue, it's these groups that should be quarantined on a regular and/or permanent basis!
E.G.
1. Should all vaccinated people be quarantined for 2 to 3 weeks after every jab, whilst their immune system recovers and resets.
2. Should all un-healthy people be quarantined for the greater good of healthier people until they can pass a medical showing good health? Included in this group could be people with high BMI's, people with immune deficiencies, people with the flu, etc!
I believe it's more or less proven that vaccinated people are now at higher risk of regular bouts of Covid variants, hospital visits and are therefore putting pure blood humans at risk for a variety of reasons, not least of which is helping spread infinite variants, which may eventually raise the risk for unvaccinated people!
Therefore using Cov-Idiocy logic it can easily be argued that if anyone should be quarantined then it should be the vaccinated and/or unhealthy people.
However with the exception of No. 2 above, I am joking! I take responsibility for my own health and I realise no one is perfect. However it might be considered reasonable for an unvaccinated person to expect a recently vaccinated person to take 2 weeks off work to help keep me safe? After all it was their choice, not to rely on (and or look after), their own God given immune system, not mine!
At the end of the day I am very healthy, I've never take any vaccines since childhood (as i'd like to think medicine was not corrupted back then), and now in my late 50's I am doing fine. And all that despite my fair share of partying, hangovers, global travel and well over my fair share of being sociable throughout the pandemic!
I like the way you think Pixie! With all that's know by now, including that modified are more likely to die, why not turn the tables? Don't we have a right to keep safe? ❤️
I find this reasoning entirely satisfactory. Thank you for laying it out so clearly in language an old codger like me can readily comprehend.
Sadly, in an age where ignorance and belligerence are “celebrated” and deep and subtle thought is derided as “racist” (as though “people of color” are incapable of reasoning at a level much above the satisfaction of base biologic urges -- a case of projection if there ever was one) it is a sermon heard only by the choir, I fear.
Lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, are just stepping stones toward our dystopian future. Sure, there has been some pushback but there has also been a certain level of acceptance, of normalization. This is really simple. If we desire to retain our free will, our agency, there cannot be any compromise, any acceptance of this crap. There has to categorical rejection of such future. If we don’t this, the criminals intend to deliver us to their desired destination, inch by inch, if needed. A critical mass of us must vomit these people and their visions out of our systems. Any "compromises" mean inevitable death to us. There can be a great variety of ideas how to do it, but that we need to do it must be an absolute point of unity.
The real calculus is quite straightforward, Andreas. If the sum of all uptake-related injuries is greater than zero, mandating uptake is a deliberate injury, full stop.
I have discussed this with many who advocate coercion, their argument consisting of "it's a public duty and safe and effective." The response I have given is that the only comparison we have, is that of being drafted to fight and die in a war. We honor fallen soldiers, those who died that others might live. To deny the cause of so many deaths caused by the experimental injections, is to heap dishonor on those who chose death to save the lives of others.
I realize that most of those who died from the injections were not informed of the deadly risks involved with volunteering for mass human trials of a substance that killed most of the animals that it was tested on during early stages of development. The dishonest withholding of informed consent, makes those deaths a form of murder, rather than acts of noble self-sacrifice.
holding Nuremburg 2.0 trials is what must be done.
You are absolutely right.
To add insult to injury, they died without saving anybody and protecting anything, quite the opposite: they died for naught, also hurting their lowed ones by their untimely departure, and contributing to the murderous totalitarian campaign by being the useful idiots that further the nefarious cause.
Well said Ted!
The forced military draft is a good analogy, though it doesn’t alter one’s innate physical being. Or does it?
(I’m seeking a bulletproof (!)analogy to distill the ethics arguments described in the article)
The draft analogy addresses two aspects of the argument for coercion, Datagal; social or legal compulsion, and exposure to risk of physical and mental injury. The latter includes permanent or intractably persistent internal changes, with stress disorders being the familiarity. By familiarity, I mean that every analogy must refer to something with which both speaker and listener are familiar.
What has made the current situation so difficult to resolve is the multivariate nature of responses to it and affects from it. At its root is an infectious pathogen, the response to which was planned for. That plan was discarded, in favor of a terror-inspiring campaign that was extremely cynical and opportunistic. The terror campaign opened the door for opportunism of various sorts. Each opportunistic sub-campaign takes advantage of a different aspect of human weakness.
When we try to find a unifying analogy, we run up against the familiarity problem. The "let's punish people" campaign is understandable to folks familiar with the Milgram experiment. The "let's conduct a mass human experiment without disclosure" campaign has aspects of the Tuskegee experiment. Relatively few people are familiar with those experiments.
To be useful, an analogy must be evocative. It's pointless to use Milgram and Tuskegee in an analogy if the people one is addressing are unfamiliar with them.
The "duty, safe and effective" argument is evocative, which is to say; it relies on familiarity with the underlying premise. "Don't kill grandma" is a universally shared premise. A Pfizer spokesperson recently offered an apologia consisting of a seemingly nonsensical analogy; "we were working at the speed of science."
But is it nonsensical?
Only to those who think of science as a method of thinking. The majority do not think of science in that fashion. "The speed of science" is actually a very clever invocation, one based on a widely understood human weakness; vulnerability to the logical fallacy of false comparison.
If we pause for a moment and indulge ourselves with a thought experiment, we begin to appreciate the cleverness of that false comparison and its degree of effectiveness. Mentally, how do we, and everyone we know, complete this description; "the speed of......." what?
Speaking as a grandpa who is rather grateful that "don't kill grandma" is a widely shared moral stricture, I find "the speed of....." an interesting evocation because of the context. As a child, I (along with everyone else) was enchanted by the newly-broken sound barrier. Before the moon shot and popular acceptance of science fiction (before Star Trek,) We would have concluded our little thought experiment as "the speed of sound." That was fast, very fast and it meant "in a great hurry."
But all it meant was fast.
Nowadays, the common response is going to be "the speed of.... light." Now, we have a much wider chain of associations. What subliminal mental imagery do we associate with "Light?"
Clever, no?
Please forgive the lengthy reply, Datagal, but I'm trying to share the difficulty I've encountered with finding a truly comprehensive analogy, one encompassing enough of the myriad aspects of the deception and coercion deployed over the last few years.
Many, including myself, have resorted to referencing "The Great Evils" of historical totalitarianism; Fascism and Communism," hence the "Nuremberg 2.0." This can be counterproductive in one sense, because overuse renders it seemingly hyperbolic in the minds of those who are innocent of the details surrounding the lockdowns and injections.
I suppose that what I'm saying is that no one analogy is "bulletproof," and we have to offer different analogies in response to different aspects of today's great terror campaign, depending on the point of view shared by our interlocutors.
Your observation is astute and, if you can craft a comprehensive analogy, I'd be thankful if you shared it with me.
Amazing reply. Thank you. I’ll ponder it awhile, and meanwhile use the military draft analogy on a few people to see what happens!
❤️❤️❤️
there will have to be revolutions first, it seems.
It's a fundamental question, Napoleon. You are rightly touching on an analogy that isn't fully applicable to the current situation, however evocative it may be.
I read your substack article and found it interesting and well-written. I could make a valiant attempt to compare the widening awareness of the public to the conquering and occupying forces that precipitated and conducted the Nuremberg trials, but that leads to ever more strained attempts to find comparators at increasingly fine levels of resolution, so I'll stick with that one analogy.
We have prosecutors and judges that are capable of doing the work, but their actions must be supported by a universal awareness of the crimes that have been committed. Stretching the point quite a bit, I'll offer a hypothesis that it is people like our good host Andreas that are avatars of a modern day Benjamin Ferencz.
Andreas and others are amassing the evidence. As the evidence accumulates, it becomes an increasingly powerful stimulus, one that activates a visceral response within the hearts and minds of every person that values honesty and justice.
As that response widens among the citizenry, it approaches a critical mass that oversees the actions of our judicial systems. In one sense, we might think of our justice systems as "watchers," in the sense of watching over human interaction with the object being a peaceful resolution of conflict.
The answer to the question "who watches the watchers" is, ultimately, "all of us, together."
The world has many justice systems. They are composed of humans, and all of human foible and frailty applies to the individuals that, together, form those systems.
I'm going to offer another hypothesis; that justice will begin within one of those systems, and that the very human instinct toward herd behavior will lend enough courage to the individuals within other systems, for them to follow suit.
I am not advocating for blind faith or complacency. My purpose it to suggest that we must avoid the trap of falling victim to propaganda that would have us surrender to fatalistic nihilism, trapped within learned helplessness.
WOW! This is a commentary I will be reading MANY times! This is “outta the ballpark”!
Now when people inquire why my bf and I aren’t working, or why we aren’t at our previous jobs, I’ll have some excellent replies and reasons (not that I need any).
I lost (forced early retirement) my career of 23 years, and he lost his career of 17 years-NO JAB!
I’m a logical person, usually, and this is a fantastic commentary on the “vaccine”, which is NOT a vaccine.
I ran against Gavin and went to jail
2007.
Sorry this happened to you.
The idea that vaccination wasn't coercion is absurd if you rotate the shape just a little:
----------------
If you want to keep your job, you have to sleep with the boss. You're always free to find a new job, so no coercion!
Harvey is off the hook then?
At least the dick comes out........
Yep imho lol Seriously though (and I do have somewhat twisted mind)
unless those women were in fear for their lives...we've seen them happily smiling in public in a friendly embrace with Harvey. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the glorious #me too the H/wood would've kept going the way it had from the very beginning, and everyone seemed to be happy. But you're right, it's not the same here where a person was put between rock and the hard place, lubricated by fear and persuaded by
"health experts". That is high grade of coercion.
wait... you believe the casting couch procedure has suddenly ended?
It was just a little prick.
🤣🤣
They have to hold on to the root lie of the properties of the Magical Vaccine.
And so they do.
Without it, they are revealed to be taking part in Evil.
They could say, "I was duped." maybe. That would require humility. And would be painful.
But either way, they have to get real about some darkness in their soul, that they dressed up as "greater good".
Yep! As it turns out, the greater good is pure evil, when mandated.
Yeah, I just wrote a post on this. Same principles.
My thesis is that for Evil to work at Scale, "good" people have to believe that they are doing "good things".
I think Evil requires a Lie or people stop it.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4451.People_of_the_Lie
So this is a pretty simple case study. One must believe that the "vaccines" have these properties or it all comes unraveled. Next , they must NOT see the harms that the mandates and fascism have wrought.
Thank you very much for this excellent important discussion. The hypothetical scenario you include is useful and I predict will stop a few in their track of virtue signaling. It is now more than 18 months, since this brilliant Kowalik treatise was published in The Journal of Medical Ethics’. It has since been a long time in this journey of violation of basic human rights. Clearly these journals are read by nobodies. It would behove any educated moral reader of this journal of ‘medical ethics’ (currently an oxymoronic term) to act courageously and quickly to stop the global mandate regime in its tracks. A readership of ‘nobodies’ it seems.
Qui tacet consentire videtur.
Mandates continued.
I sent a concise summary of the Kowalik treatise to a psychiatrist relation in late 2021. Crickets. Xmas was coming. It was very clear to me then, that these key concepts of ‘preserving the constitutive conditions of (human)) agency’ and the importance of the preservation of ‘the innate human constitution’ are nothing more than entertainment for so called ‘intellectuals’. Nothing to do with medicine.
As most physicians seem to be incapable of logical reasoning, it is unreasonable to expect from them to even begin to comprehend Kowalik. On the other hand, this crowd can start pushing the issue. As does Julie Ponesse. And Sage Hanna. Hopefully Steve Kirsch, Pierre Kory, Mike Yeadon, Rebert Mallone, etc., etc., etc. The medical issues are obvious by now. We have to start hitting home the message that the ethics of this whole affair is all wrong, unacceptable, and never to be attempted again.
Yes. I agree completely. Attention is so easily diverted. This Kowalik statement should sink this inflated Neurath medical boat and all their hubris..
“Since body-autonomy is a constitutive condition of our existence as conscious rational agents and is also a necessary condition of a life worth living, it is as valuable as life. “
This gave me a bit of a brain cramp!
Yep,same here. But it is worth the effort.
I think I'm getting it now.
My advice to fight vaccine mandates would be to fight the ethics of it and not the science that motivated it. Fighting mandates by denying that vaccines didn't prevent infections implies that one day if we find some such thing it would be permissible to mandate it then.
https://twitter.com/RogerSeheult/status/1580388196545753091
1. If your vaccine is effective , why do I need it to protect you?
2. If your vaccine is INEFFECTIVE, why I do I need it?
3. Do you insist that other couples use protection in order to protect you?
4. Do you insist horny couples don't get laid because you are not getting any?
5. Do you tell others to wash before they go outside?
6. Do gym junkies insist that other people do the same?
7. Do you insist that people don't drive in order to reduce pollution for you?
8. Do you understand the key principle of public health? (Govts need to focus on the totality of the public health, not focusing on one disease to the exclusion of the rest.)
Exactly my concern! Thanks, Barry!
In conclusion, public health (or other) proclaimed public interest cannot ever trump individual agency. Full stop.
Is Q4 your concern?
Seems so tranquil now, even serene, down under, doesn't it?
Yes. However, the "no booster, no job" still applies to the HCWs and aged care.
A nurse with 4 kids had to quit because she won't take the third!
NSW has removed the general Public Health Orders!
"No longer in force
General
(no longer in force)"
https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/information/covid19-legislation
However, there are still people - adults and kids - wearing masks outdoors - and in cars! Even when they were by themselves.
That is called PTSD over here.
They did not look stressed. Were happy to wear it.
"Double the protection" as one woman answered me.
What puzzles me is that they could see those around them maskless and not wondered why not!
It is mean of me to inwardly smirked that some of them would have given me the Karen/Kevin eyes if they could. In fact, one guy in 2020 angrily spat a f-bomb in my direction as he walked on!
Superstition.
Logic, it's simple ...
One simplification is that vaccine maximalism harms people who already have cross-immunity. That's always and everywhere a large group. It also severely harms people who have undiscovered or unacknowledged vulnerabilities to vaccine injury—another significant group.
Kowalik mentions the latter in his treatise. The former is specific to the Covid jabs, Kowalik's reasoning is generic.
The Supreme Court decision of Jacobson v. Massachusetts was also used to justify Korematsu v. United States.
The Japanese had no right to endanger others by being Japanese.
The courts may be wrong, the supreme courts supremely wrong at that:
https://www.aier.org/article/covid-19-lockdowns-violate-the-us-constitution/
Good work Andreas, and I would humbly offer, and I'm sure our Founding Fathers would agree, that the core issue here is the unalienable right of the individual vs. the artificially manufactured right of the collective. ~ Thanks, "I'll be here all da week."
BTW, The smallpox vaccine that was used to justify Jacobson v. Massachusetts did not work.
And even if it did...
If the vaccine was safe and effective you would not need to force people to take it.
Good point, eh?
And the only precedent it set was a one time, $5 fine. No ongoing fine, no job loss, no restriction of access to public spaces. Five bucks.
It is similar to the fine you have to pay if you don't buy Obamacare insurance. You can still fly on planes if you don't have Obamacare insurance.
And the court declared that Jacobson pay a 5$ fine for not being vaccinated (about 150$ lately - before inflation took off). They didn't haul him off and vaccinate him.
or compromise his bodily integrity
As stated in this WEF article, the COVID19 vaccine “was a test of social responsibility.” It’s likely they wanted to know what percentage of the population would sign on to the climate change/ESG/carbon credit hoax to “save the planet.” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/my-carbon-an-approach-for-inclusive-and-sustainable-cities/
They win, we lose.
Yeah don’t wanna, fsociety.
There is a simplistic way to wake people up on this, by turning the tables! All of the following are high risk groups for catching and spreading Covid, and more besides! So based on the science (but also partially in jest), I'd say we can argue, it's these groups that should be quarantined on a regular and/or permanent basis!
E.G.
1. Should all vaccinated people be quarantined for 2 to 3 weeks after every jab, whilst their immune system recovers and resets.
2. Should all un-healthy people be quarantined for the greater good of healthier people until they can pass a medical showing good health? Included in this group could be people with high BMI's, people with immune deficiencies, people with the flu, etc!
I believe it's more or less proven that vaccinated people are now at higher risk of regular bouts of Covid variants, hospital visits and are therefore putting pure blood humans at risk for a variety of reasons, not least of which is helping spread infinite variants, which may eventually raise the risk for unvaccinated people!
Therefore using Cov-Idiocy logic it can easily be argued that if anyone should be quarantined then it should be the vaccinated and/or unhealthy people.
However with the exception of No. 2 above, I am joking! I take responsibility for my own health and I realise no one is perfect. However it might be considered reasonable for an unvaccinated person to expect a recently vaccinated person to take 2 weeks off work to help keep me safe? After all it was their choice, not to rely on (and or look after), their own God given immune system, not mine!
At the end of the day I am very healthy, I've never take any vaccines since childhood (as i'd like to think medicine was not corrupted back then), and now in my late 50's I am doing fine. And all that despite my fair share of partying, hangovers, global travel and well over my fair share of being sociable throughout the pandemic!
1 should have been there from get go, more like 3 weeks.
I like the way you think Pixie! With all that's know by now, including that modified are more likely to die, why not turn the tables? Don't we have a right to keep safe? ❤️
I find this reasoning entirely satisfactory. Thank you for laying it out so clearly in language an old codger like me can readily comprehend.
Sadly, in an age where ignorance and belligerence are “celebrated” and deep and subtle thought is derided as “racist” (as though “people of color” are incapable of reasoning at a level much above the satisfaction of base biologic urges -- a case of projection if there ever was one) it is a sermon heard only by the choir, I fear.
Lockdowns, masks, vaccine mandates, are just stepping stones toward our dystopian future. Sure, there has been some pushback but there has also been a certain level of acceptance, of normalization. This is really simple. If we desire to retain our free will, our agency, there cannot be any compromise, any acceptance of this crap. There has to categorical rejection of such future. If we don’t this, the criminals intend to deliver us to their desired destination, inch by inch, if needed. A critical mass of us must vomit these people and their visions out of our systems. Any "compromises" mean inevitable death to us. There can be a great variety of ideas how to do it, but that we need to do it must be an absolute point of unity.