We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

But instead of this, I am facing enormous pressure to get a vaccine in order to recover my basic rights as a citizen. And even then, those in charge are saying, I will still have to run around with a completely useless, breath-robbing and personality-canceling mask on my face.

And all this for a disease that, even before the introduction of vaccines, gave those infected by it a roughly 997.5 out of 1,000 chance of survival.

The civil authorities have decided, in effect, that fully indemnified pharmaceutical companies, whose pasts are obscenely littered with fraud, and the calculated creation of crises in order to up revenues on their products (OxyContin anyone?), have the de facto “right” to force me to take an experimental vaccine that, in the very, very best of circumstances, will only match what my apparently well-functioning body has already given me without any side effects.

And this, while straight out telling me that even if I submit to their government-coerced medical experiment I will probably still not get my full constitutional rights back.

This is an important issue that needs to be addressed much more vigorously than has been the case up until now.

Thomas Harrington

20 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Paul Marks

    It is not a good situation – in this or many other nations.

    Indeed I can not think of a single nation where rights AGAINST the state are firmly secured.

    Even those nations that did NOT lockdown often did so because of a whim of the local dictator (in Belarus or Nicaragua, or ….).

    It is true that legal (indeed CONSTITUTIONAL) doubts were expressed against a lockdown in Sweden – thus helping to prevent it. What their position is on pushing people to take vaccines, I do not know.

    In the United Kingdom the legal situation is clear – since the Blackstone Heresy (Sir William Blackstone) the opinion of lawyers is that Parliament can do anything it likes.

    Constitutional “Whiggery”, such as that of Sir John Holt (Chief Justice from 1689 to 1710) is as dead in the United Kingdom, as the ideas of the Founding Fathers are dead in that corrupt cesspit of Collectivism known as the United States Federal Government.

  • Dalben

    100% correct that people should not be forced to take a medication to have their rights respected. I completely agree.

    However, it’s not experimental anymore, we have tons of evidence that the vaccines work great. Nor is a survival rate of 99.75% correct, unless he’s talking about a very young subset of the population, of which a greater percentage become seriously ill.

    So don’t take the vaccine because the government tells you to. But do take the vaccine because the benefits vs risks are hugely in favor of it both for benefitting yourself and others.

    And yes, the government gives lots of stupid advice or orders. Doing the opposite isn’t automatically a good idea. After all how do you do the opposite of being told not to wear masks and also being told to wear masks? So if you have the chance to take the vaccine, for crying out loud take it, don’t cut off your nose to spite the government.

  • Dalben

    If your government told you not to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge would you decide that doing so was actually a good idea?

  • Mr Ed

    The good professor appears to work in Connecticut, if my reading of the OP is right. I would guess that his State is hell-bent on restrictions, and now so is the Federal government. He now has two tyrannies to fight.

    Here in England, if the government mandated facial tattoos of ‘anti-vaxxers’ i.e. those unvaccinated I have no doubt that the courts would uphold such a move, albeit ‘with considerable regret’, as not being against Human Rights principles due to the need to protect others’ ‘right to life’.

  • Gingerdave

    I agree with Dalben.

    The overall infection fatality rate is about 1.5% in the UK, higher in Italy (2.7%) and lower in Geneva (0.5%). (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-020-00698-1/tables/3)

    Not the 0.25% that link claims.

    In contrast, the flu IFR is about 0.1%.

    Remember that there are many more cases of ‘long covid’ which may leave people unhealthy for many years (the disease has only been around for a year so there’s no research on this yet), which usually isn’t the case with flu.

    Yes, the vaccines work, remarkably well. A large scale study on the Pfizer BNT162b2 (596,618 vaccinated people matched with unvaccinated) showed 92% effectiveness against infection and severe disease (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765).

    Yes, the reduction in civil liberties is serious – but surely we should use accurate data to make decisions?

  • However, it’s not experimental anymore, we have tons of evidence that the vaccines work great.

    Actually there is some evidence, but not ‘tons of evidence’ as the testing & subsequent approval process has been vastly truncated. If you have T-cell immunity then the risk of ADE from the ‘vaccine’ (& some are not vaccines but rather gene-therapies) may be greater than the risk of Covid. Or it might not be. But we can’t know for another 18-24 months because that’s typically how long it takes to know.

    Getting some version of the jab might make sense for some people who are at-elevated-risk, but it really doesn’t make sense for everyone.

  • Poniatowski

    Yes, the reduction in civil liberties is serious – but surely we should use accurate data to make decisions?

    You must be joking. There’s no accurate data because for every study you or I can link to, there’s another saying something different. There’s no single ‘science to follow’ or unimpeachable source to quote, just lots of opinions based on different assumptions & motivations. Infection death rate estimates range from almost 3% to 0.04%, depending on methodology & how the figures get massaged due to political & financial incentives. Accurate data is more than an illusion, it’s a delusion.

  • Gingerdave

    some are not vaccines but rather gene-therapies

    How do you define the vaccines as gene therapy?

    Gene therapy is usually defined as the transfer of foreign DNA into the nucleus of the patient’s cells and produces permanent changes in those cells.

    The mRNA vaccines do not affect the nuclear DNA.

    Protein production involves the production of mRNA in the nucleus, which is then moved out of the nucleus into the cytoplasm, where the cell uses that mRNA as a template to produce a protein. The mRNA vaccines simply add more mRNA instructions to the cell. The vaccine mRNA is destroyed by the same enzymes in the cell that destroy the mRNA made in the cell.

    Infection death rate estimates range from almost 3% to 0.04%, depending on methodology & how the figures get massaged due to political & financial incentives.

    What’s the source for those IFRs? I prefer research papers similar to the one I linked.

  • APL

    Thomas Harrington: “I am facing enormous pressure to get a vaccine in order to recover my basic rights as a citizen.”

    Nearly no member of the general population have been properly ‘informed’, therefor are not in a position to make informed consent.

    “This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.”

    Almost no one who has been vaccinated has consented without duress of some form or other – threatened with death, regailed with false information, ‘the ‘R’ number has gotten above 2′. Lied to and emotionally blackmailed or coerced by demagogues.

    In this environment, just about every vaccination administered, has been administered in contravention of the Nuremburg code.

  • I prefer research papers similar to the one I linked

    Well sure, we all prefer research papers that agree with the conclusions we want. And fortunately, there’s papers to back up every opinion, with arguments on teh internetz among more educated folk being a series of broadsides at each other shooting links to suitably collated papers.

  • The risk from the vaccine appears to be slight. For those without co-morbidities, the risk from the virus is now known to be slight (by all those who do not refuse to know that). In all age groups, the annual risk of being recorded as dying from driving or crossing the road with the frequency and care of the average Briton is a multiple of the risk of being recorded as a non-comorbid ChiComCold death in the March 2020-2021 period.

    Recent comparative studies between countries and regions indicate lockdown gave no statistically-verifiable benefit. This does not mean there was none, merely that grandiose claims of how many would have died without should be taken with great caution. For the non-comorbid, the effect of taking the vaccine on their premature death rate will likewise be hard to spot if they go on crossing the road and driving down it – unless of course, that benefit proves hard to disentangle from the life benefits of being let out of lockdown for taking it (if that reward is granted).

    Obviously, it is a practical decision whether to defy both mask and vaccine or to take the latter so as to better justify taking off the former. I have on several occasions taken the flue jab, which changes every year. If I were in a smog-ridden Chinese city, I might wear a mask, but generally I loathe the things.

    Exactly a year and a week ago, ‘Time’ wondered why people were wearing masks instead of trusting the ‘experts’ – a question whose last three words answer themselves today.

  • Gingerdave

    Well sure, we all prefer research papers that agree with the conclusions we want.

    Of course we do, and confirmation bias is very real.

    However, at least a paper has been peer-reviewed and revised accordingly. The paper I linked was good enough to stratify the IFR by age – it’s very low for children which is a good argument for allowing the schools to reopen but very high in the elderly.

    Speaking hypothetically:

    For those of you who don’t want the vaccine because you think it’s unsafe – how long would you wait until you’re prepared to take it?

    How high would the IFR have to be for you to take the vaccine now?

  • The Cyborg

    Gingerdave: How long would I wait? At my age, I’d probably wait until I was old enough to actually be at a risk that is higher than other risks that I willingly take all the time in my life. I willingly ride a motorcycle, go skiing, etc. I’ve tried sky diving, but it isn’t my cup of tea.

    From what I can see, my risk last year from COVID-19 at my age was pretty small.

    I mean, what, 388 people under sixty who didn’t have serious pre-existing conditions died in the UK? So, there are about 49 million under 60’s in the UK. That puts the chance of death “with” COVID-19 at 0.00079%. So, I’m expected to, what, modify my life in ANY way because 0.0008% of people my sort of age died last year?

    Maybe be pessimistic, ignore all of the people under 30. There are 25 million 30-60 year olds in the UK. Still gives you about 0.0018% chance of dying last year. I’m sorry, but I’m not prepared to sacrifice a hell of a lot to eliminate that kind of risk. In all honesty, it’s so low that if it weren’t in the media all the time, I’d just ignore it.

    Over 2,000 people a year die in car accidents, and yet… wait for it: I drive! Yes, because that’s a risk that’s actually an order of magnitude greater than the risk posed to me by COVID-19 last year.

    The average person has a >1% chance of dying this year—after all, our average life is less than 100 years long.

    As an example, I took a flu vaccine last year. I’d never done it before. Why did I do it last year? Well, they were jabbing people at work and I felt like procrastinating. I wouldn’t drive 20 minutes to get a flu vaccine because it’s not worth that amount of my time to get one.
    I’m not against getting vaccines here and there, but vaccinating yourself against a disease which is basically benign to healthy people is a waste of time and money.

  • Plamus

    Gingerdave, here you go.

  • jmc

    @ Gingerdave

    The IFR paper you quoted is just a meta-study of mostly heterogeneous non-representative sample populations proxies. Mathematically meaningless. There is nothing to indicate in the clinical data published so far that when the proper large scale randomized seroloical studies are done (which is how an IFR is actually calculated) that they will show an IFR or CFR (which is calculated from the correct IFR) will be much different from the other four general circulation human corona-viruses. Most probably closest in pathology and epidemiology to 229E and OC43.

    As for the vaccine safety. Well according the CDC VAERS database at least 1200 people have died already in the US from adverse reactions. Out of around 60 million vaccinations. In a typical year 150 million plus get the flu shot in the US. For about 30 to 50 deaths. So the SARS CoV 2 vaccine is about 50x to 70x less safe than the flu shot. The last time I looked at my PSI/PORT score I am still more likely to die / get seriously ill from Influenza A than SARs CoV 2. Which is true of all age cohorts < 75.

    The other damning fact about the SARs 2 vaccine is that it mostly kills the over 75's. At least 10% have dementia. The age group for which these vaccines have been shown to have the little or no measurable impact on severe illness rates or mortality rates.

    Mass vaccination like every other public health measure in the last year is purely politically motivated. There are no medical justifications. None.

    So no vaccination here.

    One thing I have learned recently while digging through the published literature is that there is now a very useful Shingles vaccine and the Tdap vaccine needs a ten year top up. So I need to organize getting those shots. Actual properly tested vaccines. Which have gone through the full FDA 505(b)1 testing process. Which usually takes at least 4 to 6 years.

  • Paul Marks

    Thank you Perry – you have given a balanced assessment of the benefits and risks of the new vaccines (if that is the correct word for them).

    Sadly anyone who is not financially independent takes a very big risk of punishment if they express any doubts about the matter.

  • Gingerdave

    @ Plamus – thank you, it’s always good to see new papers.

    @ jmc – how do you resolve their usual mild symptoms with the enormous spike of extra deaths that was seen in the spring of 2020? https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

    I’ve looked at the VAERS database and found <1000 deaths, where was the 1200 from?

  • MMcg

    Health Care Workers in Ireland as of 27 February: 27,148 infections, 15 deaths. Infection Fatality rate: 0.055%. Survival Rate: 99.945%. HCW Chances of dying if infected: 1 in 1800

  • the other rob

    This is an important issue that needs to be addressed much more vigorously than has been the case up until now.

    It’ll end up getting addressed kinetically, at this rate.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    The civil authorities have decided, in effect, that fully indemnified pharmaceutical companies, whose pasts are obscenely littered with fraud, and the calculated creation of crises in order to up revenues on their products (OxyContin anyone?), have the de facto “right” to force me to take an experimental vaccine that, in the very, very best of circumstances, will only match what my apparently well-functioning body has already given me without any side effects.

    The key phrase here is “de facto right”. This is the key point. It is true.

    A de facto right is often much more durable and secure than a de jure right.

    This is the heart of our predicament – not only with respect to the matters related to COVID (lockdowns etc) but any number of other issues such as free speech. Democracy is sometimes good at securing our de jure rights, but our de facto rights? lol

    I know which set of rights I think is more important.