In the long run, COVID-19 vaccination provides little or no protection from infection. Thus, an analysis of risks versus benefits of vaccination must assess to what extent will vaccination reduce the number of infections a vaccinated person will experience and to what extent, if any, will vaccination reduce the incidence and/or severity of adverse outcomes associated with infections.
The ludicrous stupidity of vaccine passports for a rapidly mutating respiratory virus is patently clear for anyone with either awareness of the history of public health and epidemiology, or who is a primary care physician and understands the limits of vaccines – particularly for patients with complex chronic health conditions. Everyone is different. Everyone responds differently to both viruses and medication.
Portraying the crimes of states and authorities as accidents at work is welcome because it resonates with how most people would wish the world to be. We do not want to believe that authoritative bodies purposefully commit psychopathic deeds. The thought that our decision-makers would have introduced vaccine passes despite knowing that the injections did not protect against the spread of infection is horrible.
Over two-thirds said the governments’ pandemic response had been too heavy-handed, 25 percent said the leaders had done the best they could, and 8 percent thought Australia had handled the pandemic as well as any other country. Most strikingly of all, only 35 percent of the 45,000 vaccinated respondents in the poll said they would make the same decision again, while not a single unvaccinated person expressed regret for the decision.
The problem is not corruption. It is rather a flagrant conflict of interest that was built into the EU’s authorization and procurement process right from the start, but that remains invisible so long as BioNTech is ignored. This is presumably why the company was persona non grata at the hearing of the EU Parliament’s committee on Covid: officially known as the COVI (sic) Committee.
The trial results have from the start been used to justify draconian attacks on and exclusion of unvaccinated people, for a long time the 95% efficacy claim was relentlessly touted to support mass-vaccination, and those who doubted this, pointing to actual data, immediately became the targets of “fact-checkers” like Madison Dapcevich and were subsequently censored by social media, smeared and ostracised.
One does not have to agree with all of the points made by the MPs, and one does not have to dispute the fact that the vaccine rollout saved lives, to understand that questions raised by elected politicians in this debate – around the scale of adverse events, potential breaches of medical ethics and regulatory capture – are serious.
Policy in public health should be only made on the basis of the evidence available. The evidence available indicates that the strategy of universal vaccination of the whole population exposed some groups to unnecessary risk, and that a differentiated risk-based strategy would have led to better outcomes. Some countries are now belatedly moving in this direction at least for boosters.
Part of what makes this all so frustrating and demoralizing is the way the whole system is set up. No one is really accountable for any of the decisions made regarding exemptions, testing, appeals, or terminations. Everything is done through third parties and anonymous emails.