The Mail Keeps Coming

Atlanta, GA

October 23, 2021

I honestly am trying to get away from this topic, but (disheartening as it is) opposing mandatory vaccines is apparently a great way to cause controversy and generate questions. Once again, I received several responses to my most recent reply. I include several below, and then will try to answer them all at once.

JD,

Thanks to you, I now understand the pushback. It’s entirely political. And in being entirely political it is irrational. I don’t mean irrational in a judgmental way, I mean irrational in that it is not based on reason and science. Also, where is the outrage against traffic laws, FAA mandates, etc.? I’m not saying all those laws are justified, I’m just saying that there is some role for government to protect safety in assuring our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. You’ve said that there is no such role.

JD,

Your statement that “governments role is to protect liberty, not health” is sound in theory. However, why have you not said that measles, mumps, rubella vaccines, etc. are “the Circle of Hell.” As far as I know, none of those diseases were ever the third-leading cause of death in the US as COVID is now.

JD,

When COVID appeared in Jan & Feb of 2020, I was skeptical that it was any worse than the ordinary flu, or perhaps SARS. However, as the data changed, my opinion changed. Have changing facts changed your opinion?

JD,

The science behind the COVID vaccine is indisputable, as is the extremely low rate of adverse reactions. Libertarians act in their enlightened self-interest. A person enlightened by the facts and science will get vaccinated, without government mandates. (with the exceptions of a very small number of vaccine-sensitive people or those with legitimate religious objections—sorry Catholics,  the Pope encourages vaccination). When the polio vaccination appeared, everyone was delighted, there was no rebellion against polio vaccinations.

JD,

I personally think it is fair for local governments to protect my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness by imposing mandates to protect me from people who have not been vaccinated against a disease which is the third leading cause of death in the United States. Just as traffic laws protect me from irrational drivers, health laws protect me from irrational disease spreaders.

JD,

You may say that I should stay at home if I’m afraid to catch COVID. I’d say it looks like you will be staying at home if you are determined to not get vaccinated–which is your absolute right to do!

This is not a comprehensive list of comments and questions, but its sufficient to reflect the most recent feedback I received.

I’ve been adamant that this disgraceful episode is about much more than a single virus, however deadly that bug may be. This is not a mere medical issue. It is, among other things, philosophical, economic, demographic and…to far too many people…political.

But that’s to be expected. After all, shame, compulsion, and vilification are not usually very persuasive tactics, but they are political ones, and tend to push people into opposing camps. One inquisitor noted that for many people this isn’t only about health. And she’s right. 

Nor should it be. Health is only one among many variables, and we need to consider them all. Unfortunately, we haven’t. Personal priorities and individual value scales were deemed irrelevant. Only what a few “public health” bureaucrats determined to be the “greater good” mattered.

So, since the first lockdowns, the initial mask mandates, and the latest vaccine requirements, this evolved among insufficient portions of the population from being a matter of preserving health to one of protecting liberty. In the United States, that should be a welcome (and expected) development, not an abhorrent one.

This is about a principle. An American principle. If governments can arbitrarily rescind our rights during emergencies that they themselves can declare, then this precedent is ominous, if not catastrophic. 

It is during “emergencies” that rights are most needed, yet discarded most easily. It’s said they must be suspended to manage a virus to keep us alive. Apeealing to a desire for “safety” is typical (and effective) propaganda. But even were it true, if we’re not free, what are we staying alive for?

This is much bigger than mitigating a particular illness. Unfortunately, most people are so monomaniacally focused on that one problem that they can’t perceive the calamitous effect of the actions they demand to allegedly address it. They insist we “do something” to squelch a germ, without regard for the more extensive collateral damage those actions will cause.

Like “terrorism”, this virus provides a perfect rationale for governments to strip liberty and exert control. It’s nebulous, engenders fear, can never be eradicated, and is invisible. But it is real. It almost compels people to demand government “protection”. And the State is more than willing to manipulate that instinct. 

More insidiously, it does so thru executive edict or bureaucratic fiat. To my knowledge, no legislature has passed a law authorizing any of the usurpations imposed in the name of fighting Covid. While no longer surprising, the lack of even a pretense of constitutional adherence is almost as frightening as the fact that so few people care that the document has been irretrievably lost.

This is perhaps a natural consequence of America’s multi-generational descent into a kleptocratic security state. It started decades ago, with some of the regulations one of my correspondents mentioned. Many of these were justifiably opposed at the time, yet were advanced and implemented in the name of “safety” and “the greater good.” They were soon taken for granted. And they’re now firmly established as new benchmarks from which to launch additional encroachments. 

That’s been done regularly during this fiasco, as previous regulations, mandates, and restrictions are regularly raised to rationalize more oppressive ones. That’s why proponents of new mandates raise the precedent of previous compulsion to make their case. After all, we infringed on your rights before, so where do you come off trying to assert them now?

Existing vaccines are often used as rationale for requiring new ones. But, at least so far as my argument is concerned, the comparison isn’t apt. 

I didn’t refer to measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines as a “circle of hell”, because they were never made prerequisites for entering a restaurant, attending a concert, having a job, or otherwise engaging in normal societal activities. Most of us have never needed a “measles passport” to go to a bar, or proof of a flu shot to keep a job.

I am well aware the merits of the polio vaccine. I received it as a kid, and authorized it for my sons. But that vaccine has a special feature that the Covid vaccine conspicuously lacks: it actually prevents people from contracting and spreading the disease it is intended to target. 

The same can be said of vaccinations for tetanus, measles, rubella, and mumps. I have no problem with any of those. I have no “problem” with the Covid vaccines either. But I do take issue with the “public health” officials, corrupt politicians, and corporate cronies who are pushing them, and the methods they’re using to do it.

Incidentally, I’ve always opposed forcing MMR vaccines on children as condition for attending school, particularly in super-sized, combined doses. I never needed those shots, nor did most kids when I grew up. As a child I contracted and recovered from measles, mumps, and chicken pox. I was fine, as were most kids, almost all of whom seemed to endure those ailments, develop their immunity, and move on. And those diseases are far more lethal to children than Covid. Most things are.

Covid is certainly serious. I’ve never denied that. But so are breast cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. That doesn’t mean all of us should have a mammogram, inject insulin, and take statins. We instead need to draw distinctions, consider context, and have some perspective. 

I realize Covid is contagious, but the point is it’s not equally serious to everyone. To many it is hardly a threat at all. And its arguable that the deterioration of our civilization in the vain hope of eradicating it is much worse than the efforts taken to annihilate it. Besides, the Covid “vaccine” doesn’t stop spread of Covid, and can’t prevent (and might even facilitate) its new variants. To acknowledge this isn’t to ignore science; it’s to engage in it.

This virus may quantitatively be more deadly than other illnesses (leaving aside the questionable manner in which Covid deaths are denoted and measured), but we know it disproportionally affects the elderly, the obese, and those with underlying medical conditions. The average age of people dying of Covid exceeds that of someone dying from all other causes.

We’ve known (yet mostly ignored) this salient information almost since the beginning of this ordeal. Instead of universal, top-down, one-size fits all measures applied to everyone regardless of risk, efforts should focus on those we know to be most vulnerable. That would be the “scientific” approach.

An unvaccinated child is safer from Covid than most fully-vaccinated adults. And even healthy adults are at minimal mortality risk, vaccinated or not. We should not be imposing on them the advice we’d give a diabetic eighty year-old or a fat fifty year-old. 

This isn’t based on conjecture or politics, but on data and science. We can acknowledge this reality without minimizing the danger to those who are at risk. And we can do so without destroying society in the process. Science, as is almost always the case, is on the side of the skeptics. Politics, by definition, comes from those wishing to compel, coerce, and force. That, after all, is what politics is.

Regarding another question I regularly receive, my opinion has indeed changed with the facts. I was very concerned about this new coronavirus when it began to spread. I still am. But my perspective adjusted as data revealed that fatality rates were not near as frightening as initially feared, and that the danger to the entire population was being wildly (and opportunistically) exaggerated as unnecessarily oppressive measures were being put in place. 

Moreover, there was little distinction regarding which demographic cohorts were most at risk. We were all assumed to be equally susceptible. Neil Ferguson in the UK projected over two million annual deaths in the U.S. alone. This was clearly preposterous and meant to provoke fear. 

And it did. It was the basis for the horrific actions the abominable Trump Administration took to precipitate this calamity. Within weeks, the absurdity of the scale and scope of these fatality projections became clear. But it was too late. The lockdowns were in place and panic set in. Science grabbed a seat as politics took the field. The absurdity of the response accelerated, and it hasn’t stopped since.

Unfortunately, most people didn’t change their opinions as these facts became apparent. Instead, hysteria increased, lockdowns continued, the economy was distorted, and mandates were imposed till we reached the point that in many places we now must take a drug and show our medical records to enter a restaurant or to be employed. And the people who oppose this insanity are portrayed as the irresponsible, irrational, “unscientific” ones. 

Meanwhile, what real science does imply is that this virus is seasonal and regional. It does what it does no matter what we do. It couldn’t care less about our behavior. States and countries with the most aggressive mask mandates and vaccination rates fare no better than ones that are more relaxed. Often they do worse.

That’s more than obvious by now. It’s not debatable or deniable. The “spikes” that affected southern states a couple months ago hit northern states later, just like last year, albeit with a lot less sanctimonious condemnation and misplaced moral outrage. 

Yet our “public health” officials keep parroting the same platitudes and issuing useless (at least insofar as controlling Covid) restrictions, as if we’ve learned nothing from the last year and a half. There is nothing scientific or rational about any of this, but it is destroying this country.

This irrationality is evident with regard to vaccines as well. I’ve never denied that these vaccines can be beneficial to many people, and that they seem to carry relatively little risk. But they do entail some risk. 

For many, the risks may exceed those from Covid. Whether someone thinks so or not is their business, not mine, nor anyone else’s. Each person should be allowed to make that assessment for himself, and for his family. Among the more disappointing realizations of this travesty is that this common-sense assertion is now a controversial opinion, particularly since the vaccines clearly aren’t as effective as initially advertised. 

Again, that’s based on facts, data, and science…not on my opinion, and not on politics. And I’m not even saying that this means the shots shouldn’t be taken. In many instances, they probably should. But it is odd that adamancy for the shots has increased as evidence of their effectiveness has waned. 

We were told by “public health” officials as recently as June that these shots would almost entirely prevent contraction and transmission of Covid. And when our “leaders” were assuring us of this, they were not insisting that everyone take them. It was only when the shots were shown not to work as promised that they were made mandatory, and their ineffectiveness blamed on those who didn’t take them.

This makes no scientific or logical sense. If the vaccines stop spread, it’s not incumbent on those who don’t take them to protect those who did. And if they don’t stop spread, having more people take them won’t matter. But in the face of contradictory data, the propaganda for vaccines only intensified. It’s almost as if the means had become the ends.

Again, I have no issue with people taking these vaccines, and think many people should. I’ve never said I haven’t. That’s nobody else’s business, and is beside the point. But why can’t we acknowledge new information, consider its implications, and allow people to make informed decisions for their own health? Instead, we resort to the bullhorn and the billy-club. It’s creepy, and not behavior worthy of a free, enlightened people. 

And what about the “wisdom” of compelling ubiquitous vaccination in the midst of a pandemic, thereby giving the virus an opportunity to evade the vaccine by mutating into new variants? This is likely what happened.

And as it did, the usual diversionary tactics kicked in, with those who caused the problem vilifying an innocent group that they’d like others to loathe. As a new variant found its way around the “vaccine”, this episode was propagandistically manipulated into an “epidemic of the unvaccinated”. 

The unconscionable effort to affix blame and stoke animosity is as silly as it is beneath contempt. Those who declined the shots are not producing new variants. And “unvaccinated” is not synonymous with “infected”. But if the “vaccines” worked as advertised, it wouldn’t matter if it was. 

As the Séance of “The Science“ continued to cast its aspersions, there was never allowance for natural immunity, which has been shown to be much more protective and enduring than what the shots ostensibly provide. Contrary to available evidence, we’re merely assured that the injection offers “added protection”, whether someone had been previously infected or not. 

It seems that, even in the United States of America, medical exemptions and religious accommodations are fragile fortresses against pharmaceutical force. And on this topic, misperception is thick.

As a Roman Catholic, I can attest that Church teaching does offer grounds for opting not to take this vaccine, or any other medication. The Catechism teaches that Catholics must not engage in an activity that violates their individual conscience, so long as the action being avoided isn’t morally obligatory. 

Although the current Pope (whatever his dubious merits) encourages Catholics to take these shots, he has not made them morally obligatory, nor claimed that it is immoral to decline them. And many bishops, including those in Colorado and South Dakota, have supported religious exemptions, and even provided templates for Catholics wishing to request them. [Update: Archbishop Vigano weighed in last week with similar skepticism, reinforcing the notion that Catholicism doesn’t compel medication, and can provide a legitimate basis for declining it.]

While other bishops (and even the Pope) might disagree with a person’s medical decision, only each individual can vouch for his own conscience. If any Catholic, as a sovereign being, is asked to do something that violates it, whatever the non-morally prohibitive reason, Church teaching compels him not to do it. The Pope knows his own conscience; he can’t speak for anyone else’s.

One writer accurately noted that I’d advise people to stay home if they fear catching Covid. Well, yes. That seems like common sense, and is consistent with how vulnerable people have always responded to contagious airborne ailments. It’s also the way a free people live their lives and manage themselves.

The writer also recognized that the “unvaccinated” may be staying home if they are determined not to get a shot, and that that is their “absolute right to do.” Well, of course. But it’s not the right of anyone else to force them to.

Governments have no right to tell people where they can travel, which businesses they can’t enter, or where they can’t work depending on whether they’ve consumed a drug from one of several large politically-connected pharmaceutical companies. That governments are doing so, and that so many approve, is what I referred to as the latest concentric “circle of hell”, and is whole point of this debate.

Given the depraved age in which we live, and the uninformed population by which I’m surrounded, I’m not obtuse enough to think I’m going to win it.

But I do know that one day…perhaps soon, maybe years from now…most people will look back on this unconscionable episode, and know that I was right. 

JD