I see from the graphs provided by the CBC that in the land of my birth the local witchdoctor’s lockdown charm has been working well – so well she’s trotted out Premier Horgan to demand it be performed yet again, with more enthusiasm. And that medical professionals there are urging the province to “make the AstraZeneca vaccine available to everyone over eighteen,” as that will speed up the rollout. Makes sense, I guess, if for every five-year age group, as we move down the scale, “the chance of dying from a COVID-19 infection is exponentially smaller.” Those eighteen-year-olds must be clamoring for it. Not sure about the school children for which the drug companies are competing.
People unfamiliar with British Columbia’s Bonnie Henry, whom The New York Times lauded as “one of the most effective public health figures in the world,” can look at her new book on the month that made her fortune, Be Kind, Be Calm, Be Safe: Four Weeks that Shaped a Pandemic. The public incantation is in the title. The real trick, as the subtitle hints, is turning four weeks into fourteen months and counting. But it’s not just Bonny Bonnie who’s on my mind; rather it’s all those lab-coat lobbyists the media like to call “medical professionals.” They compel me to speak further to one particular vaccination question that concerns us non-professionals too: namely, whether those of a more senior age who have been vaccinated ought to be encouraging younger folk to do likewise.
The short answer is no. What older people do for themselves on a risk/reward basis is up to them. What they should not do is ask younger people, like the unfortunate Mr. Foley who was hoping for a career in medicine, to share the risks with them or to take risks for them.
Though I am myself no expert on those risks, it is manifest that the experts themselves are divided. It is equally manifest that forces are at work that have nothing to do with medical expertise, that people of great power and influence are urging medications on those who have no need of them while profiting enormously from the take-up. Even the universities, bastions now for safety rather than for serious thought, are likewise urging, if not (like Rutgers or Notre Dame) actually requiring, vaccinations for the young and healthy who are not at risk from the coronavirus, in a vain attempt to prevent those who are at risk from ever being exposed. That’s the way a perpetual pandemic is run. I expect they’ll be generously rewarded by those people of great power and influence.
Such people, of course, are plainly in a conflict of interest position. Some seem quite willing to dissemble when it suits them, and to ally themselves with other rapacious forces such as the Chinese Communist Party. It is right to be suspicious of them, and so also of those who keep insisting that we are all in this together and must make sacrifices for one another. Just because that is sometimes true, and indeed noble, does not make it true here and now, in this particular way.
For my part, I strongly discourage younger people from being vaccinated. This is not only because of unresolved ethical concerns related to abortion and the ongoing trade in fetal body parts. It is also because of the short and long-term risks attached to these “vaccines” that are not really vaccines, including risks that may not begin to appear for quite some time. The latter kind of risk may prove non-existent, of course. Or it may prove less rare than the former – we don’t know and can’t know at present. In any case, the former is not rare enough, as some have noticed. The usual caveats about anecdotal data notwithstanding, I suggest listening to Dr. Hoffe in Bonnieland to get a “front-line” feel for this, or at least to read his letter to her.
Some experts have been adamant that we ought not to be experimenting, for just such reasons. They worry about everything from reproductive dysfunction (disproportionately in women) to prion disease, along with the vaccine-related or vaccine-proximate deaths that now number in the thousands, though representing – like COVID deaths – a tiny fraction of the exposed population. In some places, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson are being suspended, while Moderna and Pfizer are also coming under fire.
Balancing risks is of course a risky business. Only the young aren’t at risk, as they would be from polio, say, or the Spanish flu. Even older people, absent relevant co-morbidities, aren’t generally at risk. That doesn’t mean no one should be vaccinated, a view almost as hard to defend as the official view that everyone should be vaccinated. But it is one thing to choose to be vaccinated ourselves, knowing that we are participating in a human experiment; quite another to encourage others to do so, especially others who, if the experiment fails or indeed goes off the rails, will be much more heavily impacted. This is where the rubber hits the road, ethically speaking, and (let those who lack indemnification beware) legally as well.
As I argued recently in Catholic World Report, no one is morally obliged to take EUA vaccines for the sake of neighbor-love or good citizenship. The opposite might well be the case, despite the empty rhetoric of morally discredited figures in church and state. Nor is anyone in North America (yet) obliged by law, not even those in the military or in the medical system. It is both morally wrong and unconstitutional forcibly or deceptively to vaccinate anyone, though this is already happening in some places to the disabled and to street people, which tells us much about the phenomenon we are facing.
I wonder, in just that connection, whether many have thought about the relation between abortion rights – sloganized as “my body, my choice” but being in reality another’s body, my choice – and the vaccine mandates, formal or informal, which posit that your unvaccinated body puts my vaccinated body at risk, hence you also must be vaccinated. The analogy is certainly imperfect, but again there’s something perverse here. The perversity lies not so much in the fact that a vaccinated body is not supposed to be at risk – if it is, what’s the point? – as in the game of trump being played. Boomers, after all these years, still tend to be selfish bastards, especially when they fancy themselves philanthropists.
“I want to feel safe. You make me feel unsafe. So you must change.” A woman illustrated this quite nicely at our local grocery store the other day. When given cash back from her purchase, she threw the money on the floor (the Great Pandemic has given “filthy lucre” a new meaning) and yelled that her refund must be put on her credit card. Now all the tellers are required to ask customers how they would like their refunds before dispensing them. I guess that’s what Bonnie would call kindness.
I’m not very kind, perhaps, and not even very safe. I would just have thanked the woman for her tip and pocketed the change. It’s good to stay calm, however. Which means, among other things, not indulging the incessant fear-mongering in the media – that we do indulge it is the most obvious symptom of our true sickness – and from those lab-coat lobbyists and their lobbyists in chief. “Oh, but younger people sometimes do get this dreadful disease. In any case, our hospitals are going to collapse if you don’t stay parked on your sofa watching the CBC or reading my book.”
Against such fear-mongering I have been outspoken from the beginning, alongside the likes of Rusty Reno, who first woke me to the danger. For greater certainty, then, I do not mean to say that the more dire predictions about the mRNA “vaccines” are likely to come true. I have no way of knowing and would very much prefer, with many good and able people, to suppose that they won’t. I only intend to say that we are being herded into what is undeniably an experiment – a mostly unnecessary experiment that does indeed invite charges of malpractice, there being other means of prevention and treatment, and the COVID fatality rate and excess death numbers being so low. (In March 2021, the age-standardized mortality rate for England and Wales, for example, was more than five percent lower than the five-year average.)
There is, however, something of which to be afraid, quite rationally afraid. Or rather, something against which to be vigilant and ready to fight. For this medical experiment is also a political experiment, an experiment in population management and control. In that way, too, it is linked to abortion.
To say such things is not to indulge in conspiracy theory. It is merely to state the obvious. The aforementioned forces have made perfectly clear where they want to take us. If they have done so in such a way as to invite a proliferation of conspiracy theories, what of it? Sensible people must still ponder the big picture, just as they do, and the big picture as they see it includes a very much smaller population, one that can only be achieved by societal reconstruction and centralized control, led by a new but doubtless very mediaeval elite. Safety and comfort, as Dostoevsky predicted in The Brothers Karamazov and P. D. James in The Children of Men, are to be offered in lieu of independence and liberty. They are being offered right now through the cultivation of COVID-fear and an empty promise of protection – layer upon layer of protection – for those prepared to relinquish their rights and freedoms.
We have a moral obligation to point this out to the young, whose economic and political future is being tampered with while the collective psyche is being toyed with. Or perhaps they will have to point it out to us, insisting in no uncertain terms that they don’t wish to pay the price of our paranoia or to bear the burdens with which we are saddling them. It is their future we are mortgaging.
Should vaccine passports be introduced, as in some places they already are, we have a very grave obligation to refuse and resist them. Three cheers for Governor DeSantis, as a young man up the street said to me just yesterday. And for those clergy and MPs – not all are conformist quislings – who have joined ordinary publicans and high-flying controversialists in generating some resistance. While I wouldn’t agree with the likes of Naomi Wolf about very much, I expect, about brave resistance to “the biosecurity state” I do agree. For the advent of such a state – whether in China, as is already the case, or in Israel, as is becoming the case, or globally, as must eventually be the case – is a far more serious threat to human well-being than an experimental coronavirus treatment. But for that very reason the latter must also be treated with caution. Currently it is the carrot on the stick leading the donkey down the road to Tyranny.
Back to British Columbia or wherever it is that you live: Many people simply do what they are advised to do in matters of public health because they have a lifelong habit of compliance with authority. The habit is right and reasonable, in principle. But enough has happened in the last decade or so, and particularly in the last year or so, to dissuade a thinking person from the idea that we should simply do what we are told because we are told, on the presumption that those doing the telling are generally responsible people, acting rationally. That was never an adequate approach to our civic duty. Today, it is an impossible one.
These same authorities have told us, for example, that there is no such thing as male and female, and for all practical public purposes no God, either, who might have made man male and female. They have encouraged us, nay, required us to seek Safe Spaces both mentally and physically, even at the cost of denying plain facts – biological, economic, social, and spiritual facts – from which no person can ultimately escape with their sanity intact. Through these new Sacred Spaces – sorry, Safe Spaces – they have been busy destroying institutions and conventions without which no civilization can thrive or even survive. Not to put too fine a point on it, they have shown themselves half mad. Some of them behave as if they were themselves gods. Even Thomas Hobbes, in lauding religious sacrifices (the kind many of our bishops have been making) for the sake of civil peace, told us we ought not to stomach that.
So if, after this apocalyptic year, you still think we can afford simply to do as we are told, or that we cannot afford not to, well, good luck to you. But before recommitting yourself to that thesis and plan of action, you might want to watch a powerful montage from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, called “Covid: the Political Pandemic”. It will remind you what ungainly pirouettes the puppets have been performing while chanting “Be Kind, Be Calm, Be Safe.”
As for me, while I do not pretend to resolve medical or scientific disputes beyond my ken, neither do I trust public health shamans to determine the law, conduct foreign policy, run the economy, or rule our social and religious life, all of which is quite beyond their ken – as indeed is much of “the science” when they get outside their own immediate competence. Were I myself still young, I would not willingly entrust myself or my future to them or to their vaccination programs. Indeed, I won’t do so now, and I hope the young won’t either.
Be kind, be calm be safe? Rather, be gone, you and your charms! As the incandescent Mr Humphris succinctly put it to Sir Starmer, “Get out of my pub!“
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!