Vaccine passports — the United States' emerging social credit system — and a comment about my own COVID-19 perspective

06 January 2022

Y'all kneejerk China haters . . .

. . . do you think that American COVID vaccine passports are a good thing?

I am repeatedly impressed with how easily Americans give up their Liberty

We have become an always scared, enfeebled and constantly blowharding people.

Consider COVID-19 and today's willingly self-enslaved culture.

Of this, an appalled Helen Andrews thinks as I do

She published the following today:

You will never persuade me that vaccinated people don’t spread the virus to others.

That was supposed to be the rationale for vaccine passports. If vaccines prevented the spread of Covid, then there might be value in giving people the peace of mind of knowing their local cafe or museum or office building was a safe space where nobody would infect them.

Now that vaccines turn out to be better at protecting yourself than protecting others, the rationale for making them mandatory is dissolving.

And yet this is the exact moment when cities across the country are launching their own vaccine passports.

The cities of Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., all have vaccine passport systems coming into effect this month, covering restaurants, gyms, entertainment venues, and other indoor locations. Los Angeles launched SafePassLA in November, following the lead of San Francisco and New York City, which launched their vaccine passports last fall.

The mayors of these cities don’t even pretend to have a good rationale for launching vaccine passports now.

Reading their public remarks, the reasoning seems to be that the more they harass the unvaccinated, the higher their city’s vax rate will go. Invocations of “protecting others” are rote, with no explicit suggestion that vaccinated individuals don’t spread the new, highly contagious Omicron variant.

Coercing people into a medical procedure that they don’t want and, depending on their risk profile, don’t need, is evil. But that’s not the most important reason to oppose vaccine passports.

The most important reason is that once you create the infrastructure for a social credit system, you will never get rid of it.

I completely agree

And I am an enthusiastic COVID-19 multiple mRNA vaccine recipient.

Ms. Andrews is epidemiologically correct about COVID's transmissibility, even by (and among) the repeatedly vaccinated.

She is also right about the imminent certainty of never getting rid of Government's growing attempts to make us prove that we are good and obedient sheep.

There are no good arguments for COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports, when evaluated in light of medical and societal evidence available today.

On the vaccine mandates topic, I agree with prominent physicians — Vinay Prasad and Suneel Dhand, among many others — who vehemently reject them.

With those many physicians and surgeons, I stalwartly oppose medically treating some people — and not others — based on perceptions of their moral or societal worthiness.

And I completely reject turning ourselves into a society of enforced castes.

A necessary aside — for scientifically attuned minds

If you want to witness a brilliant presentation, regarding how a thoughtfully knowledgeable person should think about epidemiological evidence, vaccination and public health regulation — see:

Vinay Prasad MD MPH, Boosting kids 12 to 17? Thoughts on Today's decision by CDC's ACIP — How to think about regulation, YouTube (05 January 2022)

For what it is worth, my own thoughts — regarding the COVID-19 pandemic

I am of the same mind as Dr. Prasad on virtually everything to do with COVID-19 and its mishandling in the United States.

Both of us are pro-vaccine, when used (on the basis of sufficiently favorable evidence) in appropriately stratified risk groups.

Both of us similarly bewail the United States' refusal to properly investigate SARS-CoV-2 and appropriately (or not) taken countermeasures.

The only area, where I slightly depart from Dr. Prasad's view of epidemiological matters is my willingness:

to consider

under emergency circumstances

using empirically derived epidemiological and therapeutic data

('empirically' here meaning situationally and anecdotally compiled evidence)

as opposed to statistically sounder data

that would more ideally

be gathered via randomized controlled trials.

Recall, in the above regard, that randomized controlled trials require funding.

Who pays?

Do you really think that Big Pharma is going to fund a study of repurposed off-patent drugs (or therapies) that its metaphorically greedy claws will not profit from?

Do you envision that the morally and epidemiologically vacuous — thoroughly Big Pharma-infiltrated — public health entities that head the United States will do the same?

The depressing answers to both those questions have been provided by the entire two years of our COVID-19 experiences.

Nada, regarding sensibly undertaken public health-benefiting trials via 'cheap' interventions.

Therefore — as opposed to Dr. Prasad's occasionally too-adamantly 'rigorous controlled trials' thinking — I recognize that, historically speaking, a lot of valid medical knowledge has come to us from individual physicians and surgeons, who were doing apparently beneficial things — for which there was then no accepted statistical data — that, nevertheless, turned out to work.

One recent example of this, is the use of dexamethasone in very serious COVID cases. Originally, medical authorities advised against using 'dex' in those situations.

In short — in my aged and widely cross-disciplinary view — one cannot test everything in a blinded, randomized controlled trial. Ethics prohibit it. Circumstances, frequently, do also.

COVID-19 has certainly been a good example of this:

Consider the professionally based, moral necessity presented to physicians, who had no proven weapons against SARS-CoV-2, when they began — on the basis of previous knowledge of biochemical actions — repurposing generic drugs for COVID's treatment.

You can see a list of the evidence that supports the use of some of those Establishment-reviled potential COVID-19 drugs, here:

Of the 1,276 studies, 840 present results comparing with a control group, 742 are treatment studies, and 98 analyze outcomes based on serum levels.

There are 19 animal studies, 41 in silico studies, 75 in vitro studies, and 74 meta analyses.

In ivermectin's indicative instance, see here:

Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 139 studies, 91 peer reviewed, 73 with results comparing treatment and control groups.

FLCCC provides treatment recommendations.

Ivermectin has been officially adopted for early treatment in all or part of 23 countries (39 including non-government medical organizations).

I bet most readers were not aware of the mass of the above research

That should tell you something about the ethical unreliability of US government and corporations.

The moral? — Only willing puppet-brains should (as a matter of contemptible consistency) . . .

. . . put up with tyrannically spawned COVID vaccine mandates and passports nonsense.

And (if and when these sheep cower in obedience to the Self-Assigned Mighty) they should stop complaining about China's autocratically heavy hands.

Fright-quivering, frantically burrowing moles can look to their own cowardly selves, as the main source of Liberty-destruction in the world.

PeteFree.com

Vaccine passports — the United States' emerging social credit system — and a comment about my own COVID-19 perspective