I have a question. Do you believe that you have a right not to be vaccinated? If so do you believe that you have a concomitant responsibility to self-quarantine? If not why not?
I have a question. Do you believe that you have a right not to be vaccinated? If so do you believe that you have a concomitant responsibility to self-quarantine? If not why not?
I think it depends on the context. The details matter.
Yes I do.
quarantine? No way.
Why?
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Like, No shirt, no shoes, no service, business has a right to require proof of vax, but government can only put the thumbscrews to their own employees. They need to sell this.
Fauci has lost too much credibility, he needs to go.
While context does matter, especially the seriousness of the disease, the basic answer is, No.
The basic examples are the smallpox, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, and tuberculosis vaccines. These diseases are serious enough and contagious enough that vaccination against them can and should be mandatory. Moreover, people refusing to get those vaccines can be arrested and quarantined.
Whether or not Covid-19 should be on that list is debatable. It is not a serious disease for the great majority of people, but the elderly, the obese, people with certain preexisting conditions, and people with compromised immune systems are at serious risk of death. This probably justifies mandatory inoculation for everyone.
I will â€second†what Gray posted.
Mandating universal COVID vaccinations poses far more negative consequences than letting the virus achieve natural immunity, and treating early outbreaks with inexpensive, successfully proven antiviral medications. Just the litany of public health practices that have been broken, introduced through emergency edicts during the last 18 months, has either altered or devastated normal life as we once knew it. The only metric, though, obsessively looked at are ignominiously created COVID case and death numbers gleaned from questionable and erratic CDC data and “science.†There have, however, been literally thousands of physicians and scientists, worldwide, who have disputed said science, data, and authoritarian-like universally forced vaccinations….but to no avail, as media, big tech companies, elite politicians have been able to shut down any debate over the justification or efficacy of these vaccines.
I agree with Bob and also lean towards Jan’s position. I am alarmed that suddenly in our society an out group has been created that can be publicly shamed and punished. Specifically, I recall during the HIV epidemic that it was taboo to suggest those most likely to have HIV not be allowed to serve you at a restaurant. The Covid -HIV social and political contrast is huge and alarming.
” inexpensive, successfully proven antiviral medications”
We have those now? I really am a practicing doc so it would help to know what these are. We have tried nearly everything including HCQ, Ivermectin, remdesivir, etc. The results with Remdesivir are just OK. Steroid help but they are not a cure. Really, you just copy talking points into this blog. I have to talk to family members when pts die. Console staff and convince them to not quit. There are supposedly some promising therapeutics on the way but at present we dont have anything that is an actual cure.
BTW, I actually like reading literature. A personal oddity I know. I am sure I have not read everything but I dont think I have missed that many of the important papers on therapeutics. To be honest I dont read the vaccine papers much anymore since at this point they have such a good record.
Steve
The first question is easy. Yes, they have a right not to be vaccinated. The second part is hard, should they self quarantine, or, have adverse consequences forced upon them? And further, should the state have the right to impose those? Andy is correct, in my opinion, context, details and the and complexity of the issues matter. The record of politicians and public health officials so far is horrible, given the ever changing “settled science” and politics that have infected the issue. Without even thinking about it at length there are two obvious issues.
Consider minority rights. Should immunocompromised cancer patients have the right to force everyone else to quarantine so they can go about their business? There are few such individuals, but there are also relatively few people who will become seriously ill from the virus. Who should alter their behavior? Should worry-warts have the right to impose a 5 mile per hour speed limit because they are concerned someone might crash into them? Maybe we should outlaw trucks, cars and air travel because of hysterical concerns about global warming ending life as we know it. And on it goes. Minority rights have a long and deserved history. But do we govern only for the benefit of the few, or only the most risk averse among us? Who speaks for the unemployed or the children who are losing critical learning years?
Consider abuse. Thou shalt wear a mask. Unless you are the governor of CA, or Fauci at a ball game, or Pelosi and AOC when the cameras are not on or….or…or. Vaccinate or lose your job? What next? Lose 40 pounds you pre-diabetic slob, or lose your rights to health care?
Emotional pleas of having to speak to family members don’t cut it. We have all sorts of conflicting rights and self or community interests in the country that arise out of personal behaviors. We generally settle it at the ballot box, not by the rule of overlords. That’s the very definition of authoritarianism.
I’ve noted this before, but it reminds me of a 70’s era political cartoon: “And now, here is Secretary Califano to discuss his decision to give up sex and how it will affect you.”
I listen to physician/scientist interviews involving their analysis of COVID and how the government vs real science is addressing it. I really don’t think what is being handed off to the public is fully authentic. Instead it’s highly filtered to fit the narrative of the current government, benefiting basically big pharma and other people groupings who are profiting off of dubious vaccines that are being marketed as “the-end-all-be-all†for people’s survival.
Living in a medical anecdotal bubble, like Steve does, gives little credibility to his overall broad view of this virus’s track record, contrasting lethality with other viruses, ability to off-set risk/benefits of taking the vaccine or not, among a myriad of other variables.
In the meantime below is a very random, short list of doctors/experts, most who have suffered excoriation for positing an opposing opinion from the government’s, who see this virus and the vaccines in a much different frame of reference:
Dr. Harvey A. Risch
Dr. Paul Merik
Dr. Pierre Kory
Dr. George Fareed
Dr. Brian Tyson
Dr. Peter McCullough
Dr. Shankara Chetty
Dr. Rayan Cole
Dr. Robin Armstrong
Dr. G.Umberto Meduri
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
Dr. Jose Iglesias
Dr. Keith Berkowitz
Dr. Fred Wagshul
Dr. Sunetra Gupta
Dr. Martin Kulldorff
Dr. Didier Raoult
Dr. Knut M. Wittkowski
Dr. Evind H. Vinjevoll
Dr. Scott Mitchell
Dr. Eric Osgood
Dr. Howard Kornfield
Dr. Tess Lawrie
Dr. Fahmida Shaik
Prof. Colleen Aldous
Prof. Olufemi Emmanuel Babalola
Prof. Morimasa Yagisawa
Prof. Sunetra Gupta
Dr. Jill Rasmussen
Geoff Taylor​
Jean-Pierre Kiekens
Dr. G. Karl Snæbjörnsson
Dr. Anisa Mosam
Dr. Michael McConville
Dr. Jose Luis Abreu​
Dr. Simone Gold
Dr. Shashikanth Manikappa
Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter
Dr. Juliana Cepelowicz Rajter
Dr. Jose Natalio Redondo
Dr. Richard Urso
Dr. Richard M.Fleming
Dr. Luc Montagnier
Dr. Darrell DeMello
Dr. Zelenko
Dr. Byram Bridle
Dr. Robert Malone
Dr. Lynn Flynn
Dr. Mobeen Syed
Dr. Tina Peers
Dr. Bruce Patterson
Dr. Charles Hoffe
Dr. Christine Northrup
Bret Weinstein
Dr. Tom Cowan
Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi
Dr. Michael Yeadon
Dr. David Brownstein
Dr. Stella Immanuel
Dr. Andrew Kaufman
Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche Ph.D.
Dr. James Lyons-Weiler
Dr. Ryan Cole
Dr. Kary Mullis
Dr. Dan Erickson
Dr. David Martin
Dr. Patrick Phillips
Dr. Paul Thomas
Prof. Dr. Hector Carvillo
I can accept that rigorous enforcement of vaccination and quarantine by federal agents might lower the death toll from this virus, but the precedent set, and the price paid by society ay large, is too high.
Is it possible that one coming year the CDC might predict a worse than usual influenza season and impose the same sanctions?
Once the precedent is set, I think it’s inevitable.
The comparison with cholera, diphtheria, and smallpox is that this is a norovirus, it’s mutation rate is higher and you can’t run it down, eliminate it through quarantine.
The United States has a very long history of mandatory vaccinations and mandatory quarantines. Whether COVID-19 warrants such things is a reasonable question but I don’t believe there’s a fundamental principle involved as some above seem to be suggesting.
I agree with Dave’s comment but would also note that the decline in trust in our society may have reached a point where public health mandates will never again be possible without extreme controversy.
“Living in a medical anecdotal bubble,”
In all seriousness, F&ck you. I read the literature pretty extensively and talk with my specialists who read literature I dont usually read. I am not making anecdotal but rather literature based decisions. There is no government telling me what meds or therapies to use. I/we decide based upon the published literature tempered by our own experience, which we also quantify so that we can judge the effects of our interventions. You are just slinging out names, and sh&t, and have no idea what you are talking about. I notice that you never, ever actually provide any literature to support your claims. You really dont have nay idea who those doctors are do you? Admit it? You do realize that one of your Covid experts above believes that female problems in their genital tract comes from having dream sex with demons? This is pathetic. The problem is that you actually are very typical of conservatives now. You are perfectly willing to claim as an expert someone who is demonstrably nuts if it supports your tribal beliefs. (As an aside since you see this entirely through a political lens note that this is not just a USA centric view. If you go to any first world country physicians are practicing the same way.)
CSS- Totally agree though it is not just a matter of trust. I think it is actually more a matter of tribalism. If the GOP was running everything and they were the ones promoting vaccines the numbers would, to an extent, be reversed and the percentage of Republicans vaccinated would be much higher.
Steve
I think Dave’s last comment and CS’s are the point I’m making. Trust has been totally lost in the political fray. And although the “my rights shouldn’t impose on your rights” is a basic principle, in practice it becomes very complicated. Look at one of the biggest issues of our lifetimes – abortion. A classic mother vs baby’s rights question depending on how you define (the beginning of) life.
Just look at steve’s comment, which is in essence “I’m a doctor and I read other doctors and scientists who agree with me……….so screw you because I’m right and you are wrong.” That’s far too simplistic. And authoritarian.
Steve, you are frequently sneering at someone – finding something in their personality, thinking, history etc. that you can belittle – in order to make your own medical status more superior, more legitimate.
The list I posted was introduced as “doctors/experts.†Dr Stella Immanual is a primary care physician with 31 years of diverse experiences, especially in emergency medicine, not a COVID expert. However, having gone to medical school in West Africa and Nigeria she became very familiar with therapeutics in the treatment of patients with malaria. Hence, she has advocated for the same therapeutics in the early treatment of COVID. She is also, a pastor having spiritual beliefs having nothing to do with her medical practice.
I think Dave’s last comment and CS’s are the point I’m making. Trust has been totally lost in the political fray. And although the “my rights shouldn’t impose on your rights” is a basic principle, in practice things become very complicated. For example, look at one of the biggest issues of our lifetimes – abortion. A classic mother vs baby’s rights question depending on how you define (the beginning of) life.
And look at steve’s comment, which is in essence “I’m a doctor and I read other doctors and scientists who agree with me……….so screw you because I’m right and you are wrong.” That’s far too simplistic. And authoritarian.
Since this is a “vaccine†thread, I’m going to add a few more thoughts of mine.
I personally am opting not to be vaccinated. Unlike some of you I don’t view the technology behind it’s antigen abilities as either trustworthy or sound. Some virologists are even saying the vaccines, although approved early by EUAs, are only in the 3rd stage of clinical trials. What future side effects might arise are shoved aside. Even current day adverse reactions are inaccurate, due to under reporting. Nonetheless, for those who want to take these shots, that should be their right. The right of refusal should also be available to those not wanting to be vaccinated – without any recriminations or punishment attached, such as threatening the loss of a job.
Many who are sidelining vaccinations have already had COVID, and it is thought they have achieved a much broader spectrum of immunity, naturally – better able to deal with present and future variants as well, than the current vaccines do. The CDC, however, has changed immunity definitions, excluding those having natural immunity as being immunized.
Other people are choosing to support their own immune systems by taking supplements. That’s the path I’m taking. I also would like to be treated with antivirals, like ivermectin or hydroxy, should I get COVID. In countries like Mexico, India, W. Africa, and smaller less well-developed countries, vaccines are not as available as they are here. So, their main source of prevention and treatment are the very antivirals shunned in this country. Ironically, they have lower case rates and hospitalizations than the highly vaccinated countries like the UK, Israel. and this country do.
Finally, there have been smaller studies done in S. America where half of a staffed COVID ward was given a therapeutic, while the other half acted as the control. Around 56% of the control group came down with the virus. The therapeutically treated portion had zero COVID cases. Such “experiments,†though are either underreported or not reported at all. Instead, alternative treatments are eschewed, censored, and actually prohibited from being easily obtained. Pharmacies don’t carry them. Doctors are intimidated from prescribing them. YouTube, and other social media sites are scrubbing any videos describing their effectiveness. Antivirals have basically become a black market item, no matter how many medical voices are advocating for them, or success reported from other countries using them. Ultimately, here in the U.S., Government has mandated there be only one choice in which to treat COVID – vaccinate or be subjected to becoming a social outcast.
I find such medical coercion to not only be confounding, but also completely in opposition to the individuation this country was founded upon.
I have to agree with Drew, Dave, and CS. The federal, state, and local medical establishments, CDC, FDA, et al. no longer have any credibility. They have been totally politicized. There is no government agency at any level that is still apolitical. This is a long-term disaster for all of us.
“Just look at steve’s comment, which is in essence “I’m a doctor and I read other doctors and scientists who agree with me”
Sigh. I have actually read the papers and literature from a lot if not all of the above jan listed. Have you? In the era of the meta-analysis it is pretty easy to find complications of papers for and against almost every covid treatment. Besides which I really dont know how you would read only the papers that support or oppose certain treatments. If you read ivermectin studies then you end up reading them all, the ones that support its use and the ones that dont. What I have said repeatedly about that particular drug is that to date many studies show a positive effect and many show no effect, but they are all small or have serious flaws, like no controls. There are some large scale, well designed studies under way which should help answer the question, but with so many studies shown effect if there is a positive effect it is likely not large. Also, note that I did not say we should mandate vaccinations. It’s authoritarian to tell you why you are wong? Really?
jan- You are just bizarre. Immanuel is a nut case. Lots of people use therapeutics for malaria. We have proven drugs. That has nothing to do with knowing whether or not drugs work for covid. Now you have been sucked into the right wing grifters selling supplements. Oleander from the pillow guy? Silver solution from Baker?
I have been a doctor longer than 31 years. I actually take care of some covid pts. That doesnt make me an expert. What makes one credible is a knowledge of the literature and knowing what care you should be providing based on current evidence in the medical literature. The people you cite dont have that credibility because they dont have the literature support or they make recommendations without offering methods to achieve their solutions. Did you actually read the Barrington Declaration? I did. I told you and your fellow conservatives why I thought it was wrong. Zero response from you guys because you have none. You just parrot it as though it is magic.
Finally, you really are beyond the pale so I will stop responding to you on covid issues, you are pretty much accusing 90 plus % of the doctors in the US and the rest of the world of deliberately killing pts.
Steve
“ Did you actually read the Barrington Declaration? I did. I told you and your fellow conservatives why I thought it was wrong. Zero response from you guys because you have none. You just parrot it as though it is magic.â€
Yes, I read it. However, I didn’t see or read your response. Periodically, I take time off from this blog. So, perhaps that’s when you posted.
something on the Barrington Declaration.
Furthermore, I’m not “accusing†any doctor, let alone 90% of all doctors, of deliberately killing patients. What I find worrisome about so many physicians, though, is how they are limiting a patient’s choice of remedies. The last administration, for instance, passed The Right To Try bill, which gave the very ill the right to provide a waiver and then take experimental medications. I think such a right should be extended to those wanting something else but a new-on-the-market, controversial vaccine that already appears to be waning in it’s 2-shot efficacy.
Finally, Steve, you’re a consensus kind of guy ——> If enough people vouch for something then it must be true. My thinking is different from your’s. I remember reading Einstein ignored the consensus. As did Galileo and a slew of other inventors, behavioral scientists etc. For, even if the odds are 400 to 1, who is to say that the “1†isnâ€t the one containing the correct solution to a problem. Consequently, I’m always interested in opinions that are outliers, finding them oftentimes more productive than simply relying on the status quo or gold standard journals.
BTW, I rarely watch news programming anymore – so am terribly behind on the latest “talking points†put out by political talking heads.
With the announcement from Merck; if it pans out in combination with other drugs in development — the answer could end up being no to both questions on COVID-19.
The answer is definitely dependent on what alternatives there are.
I think it is actually more a matter of tribalism
But trust and tribalism are highly intertwined, no?
When (and ONLY when) people in power and the institutions they run act in a trustworthy manner, it’s possible for the masses to overcome tribal instincts. Decades ago, though, the powerful folks decided it was much easier to neglect the hard work of earning trust and instead maintain their positions of power by stoking fears between rival tribes.
That’s a good point but I think there are actually two distinct issues:
1. They must act in a trustworthy manner
2. They must appear to act in a trustworthy manner
Neither are presently the case and both must be accomplished.
globalcovidsummit.org. This is yet another “declaration,†signed by a contingency of physicians/scientists meeting in Rome recently, to discuss in person and on zoom all the issues and misinformation surrounding the management of COVID. Over 4000 signatures have been collected so far. The big battle lines appear to be drawn around being able to honestly discuss data, scientific findings etc. that does not agree with the only narrative allowed by the government, main street and social media platforms.
That’s an excellent point, Dave. A good example IMO is election integrity. The Democrats have pushed against voter ID and investigation of fraud to the point of, at minimum the appearance of impropriety . I’m sure in some cases the flip side of that is also true where GOP appear to try to suppress minority votes.
Caesar’s wife must be above reproach.