Posted on 01/17/2022 1:23:02 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Vaccine mandates are one of many stifling measures brought on by the ongoing COVID pandemic, a consequence of those trying to “follow the science” and doing anything but or of government and bureaucrat officials using the opportunity to flex their authoritarian muscles. Whether they serve a useful societal function is an open question.
The CDC website cites a book chapter by research scholars Kevin Malone and Alan Hinman that describes vaccine mandates as a means of “drastically reducing infectious diseases in the United States.” Mandates present a challenge “when societal interest conflicts with the individual’s interest.” With vaccine mandates, there is the assumption that “Increased immunization rates result in significantly decreased risk for disease.”
According to the chapter,
Although no remaining unimmunized individual can be said to be free of risk from the infectious disease, the herd effect generated from high immunization rates significantly reduces the risk for disease for those individuals. Additional benefit is conferred on the unimmunized person because avoidance of the vaccine avoids the risk for any adverse reactions associated with the vaccine. As disease rates drop, the risks associated with the vaccine come even more to the fore, providing further incentive to avoid immunization. Thus, when an individual in this common chooses to go unimmunized, it only minimally increases the risk of illness for that individual, while conferring on that person the benefit of avoiding the risk of vaccine induced side effects.
Herd immunity, a term that can get one banned from social media and polite society, is the key. Both vaccines and natural infection can achieve herd immunity. Once herd immunity is reached, the risk-benefit ratio pivots from less benefit for every last person being vaccinated to more risk from vaccine adverse effects.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The above premise assumes that the vaccine in question prevents contracting and transmitting the underlying infectious disease.
Are the COVID vaccines providing both individual and community protection? If they are, then a case may be made for vaccine mandates although that is debatable. If not, then such mandates make no sense.
An excellent person to ask is Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, the largest COVID vaccine maker. In a recent Yahoo Finance interview, Bourla let the cat out of the vaccine bag, He said:
"... And we know that the two doses of the vaccine offer very limited protection, if any. The three doses, with the booster, they offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths—and, again, that’s, I think, very good—and less protection against the infection."
“Limited protection if any,” is not a strong endorsement. It’s a polite way of saying two doses of the vaccine don’t work as previously described and promised. And with a booster, the protection becomes “reasonable.” He didn’t say robust or excellent, only reasonable, meaning that there is limited benefit. And it’s a benefit to the individual, not to other people.
An umbrella provides “limited protection if any” in a hurricane and a raincoat offers “reasonable” protection but, in both cases, you will get soaked and blown around.
Big Pharma CEO Blows a Hole in Vaccine Mandates: The ostensible purpose behind vaccine mandates is to make all society safer but reliable new information indicates that this is not what they intend.
Meanwhile our current vaccines are basically worthless as per the Pfizer CEO!
Pfizer CEO: Our Vaccines Offer ‘Limited, If Any Protection’
townhall.com ^ | 1/11/2022 0900 hrs et | Katie Pavlich
Posted on 1/11/2022, 10:03:58 AM by rktman
Speaking during remarks to a J.P. Morgan healthcare conference this week, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla openly stated current vaccines the company developed for Wuhan coronavirus offer “limited, if any” protection against contracting current variants of the disease. He then encouraged booster shots.
The statement from Bourla comes as the Biden administration continues to justify vaccine mandates for federal workers, contractors and private businesses. The Supreme Court heard arguments about President Biden’s mandates for private companies and medical workers last week. A ruling is expected soon on the constitutionality of the mandates.
A number of people who have pointed out the waning efficacy of Pfizer’s vaccines, which Bourla touted last year as being “100 percent” effective against contracting or transmitting the virus, have been banned by social media companies.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com …
Omicron Makes Biden’s Vaccine Mandates Obsolete
“There is no evidence so far that vaccines are reducing infections from the fast-spreading variant. ... there have been mass Omicron outbreaks in heavily vaccinated populations, scientists are highly uncertain the existing vaccines can stop it from spreading. ... there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.” For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence. ...
The little data we have suggest the opposite. One preprint study found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative—i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection. Confirming this negative efficacy finding, data from Denmark and the Canadian province of Ontario indicate that vaccinated people have higher rates of Omicron infection than unvaccinated people.
“Big Pharma CEO Blows a Hole in Vaccine Mandates”
I didn’t see that in the article. All I saw was an out-of-context quote and the usual click-bait headline.
There’s a reason why your Flu vaccine is an annual one. And there is a reason why there is no vaccine for “the common cold.”
Both have to do with a virus’ ability to mutate and sidestep immunity.
Clearly COVID is no different. The sooner we come go grips that COVID is here to stay and return to living normal lives, the better.
“The ostensible purpose behind vaccine mandates is to make all society safer”
In the universe of the universally deceived, at least.
It ought to be obvious that the purpose is to herd the compliant into a fake freedom world (as long as they comply), while identifying and then punishing individualists — those who are truly free.
Eh, they got this idea from religion-world.
It would be very helpful to know if the C-19 virus and its variants are man-made or nature-made before medical bureaucrats start charting out a universal strategy to defeat it.
The same people responsible for creating the virus also created the vaccines. Until all are rounded up and executed, we cannot be free.
An excellent person to ask is Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, the largest COVID vaccine maker. In a recent Yahoo Finance interview, Bourla let the cat out of the vaccine bag, He said:
"... And we know that the two doses of the vaccine offer very limited protection, if any. The three doses, with the booster, they offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths—and, again, that’s, I think, very good—and less protection against the infection."
You are a wise person. Yes, covid will NEVER disappear because it has a store-house in the animal world. Annual vaccine will be required just like the influenza vaccine.
THE VACCINE DOESN’T WORK! WAKEUP!
“This is it. I guess you missed it:”
I guess you missed this part of my post: “out of context”
Were we to accept federal-mandated COVID vaccination “to make all society safer”, that must segue to federal mandate for a great many vaccines of comparable benefit. If not this consistency, then the mandate evaporates as being purely political. If broad vax mandates are mandated, then gov’t oversteps its powers - being not a medical agency, being outside the _voluntary_ patient-doctor relationship.
Annual vaccine? The jabs don’t work. I’ve been watching vaccinated peeps go down over the last two weeks because the vaccinations don’t work. The benefits do not outweigh the risks. The influenza vaccine does not work either and is not required.
MAY never happen???
It already never happened.
People react to information in different ways. An article with many sourced quotes, followed by several early comments with other sourced URLs, is greeted with your judgment of a vacuous “the usual click-bait headline.”
What is not vacuous is Bourla's quote, made only a week or so ago, with citation: "And we know that the two doses of the vaccine offer very limited protection, if any. The three doses, with the booster, they offer reasonable protection against hospitalization and deaths—and, again, that's, I think, very good—and less protection against the infection." Don't like the headline? Read deeper. The following may help widen your review.
Not much to add to the back-and-forth of the subject.
The CDC-provided link is to a pre-COVID book from 2007:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/guides-pubs/downloads/vacc_mandates_chptr13.pdf
The Oxford University URL for the source:
Prompted by your post, I just thought of something. Can I self identify as PureBlood?
As I sit here with pain and bodily damage from the clot shot.
Are you a medical doctor?
A.) Bayer executive Stefan Oelrich, LifeSiteNews reported, made the statement at the World Health Summit, which took place in Berlin Oct. 24-26, drawing 6,000 people from 120 countries.
Oelrich said his company is “really taking that leap” to drive innovation “in cell and gene therapies.”
“Ultimately, *the mRNA vaccines are an example for that cell and gene therapy,” he said.*
“I always like to say: If we had surveyed two years ago in the public – ‘would you be willing to take a gene or cell therapy and inject it into your body?’ – we probably would have had a 95% refusal rate,” Oelrich said.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.