Vax3

The Numbers Don’t Support Scapegoating the Unvaccinated

5 ¼ min

If you’re tired of the pandemic and just want to go back to normal, David Frum at The Atlantic has news for you: It’s all the stupid people who refuse to take the vaccine that are prolonging our COVID misery.

Oh, wait, that’s not it exactly. In actuality, it’s all Trump’s fault. Frum, once a leading voice of the conservative establishment, declares: “Pro-Trump America has decided that vaccine refusal is a statement of identity and a test of loyalty.”

That’s an odd statement given Trump was in favor of the COVID vaccine, got it himself, and even launched Operation Warp Speed to develop and roll out the vaccine quickly. Frum also seems to forget that many liberals have been skeptical of the vaccine as well, while numbers of conservatives—including Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, who also recently suggested we blame the unvaccinated for the pandemic surge—have staunchly supported the vaccine.

The fact is, many unvaccinated people may not be acting out of willfulness or spite as Frum suggests. They may instead be looking at the data and wisely expressing caution until more is known about the vaccine and its effects. More information is surfacing on that front every day…but you probably wouldn’t know that unless you looked past the talking points of our ruling elites.

As I mentioned in a recent article, Israel, one of the most vaccinated countries in the world, is a good indicator of how the vaccine is working. A few weeks ago it was reported in The Times of Israel that 60 percent of those vaccinated had not contracted COVID, a startlingly low rate considering the vaccine has only been in effect for a few months. However, the latest data out of Israel is even worse, for now that number has dropped to 39 percent, though the vaccine is 91 percent effective at preventing severe cases of COVID. The vaccine’s benefits also appear to be very short-lived.

Unfortunately, statistics like that are often overlooked in the U.S., a fact former New York Times reporter turned author Alex Berenson has been carefully documenting. In a recent article, Berenson explained that the U.S. doesn’t give the full truth about who is dying or having complications from the COVID vaccine. The official narrative advanced by Dr. Anthony Fauci and others is that the unvaccinated are the ones getting sick and dying, yet data shows such a narrative is false.

As Berenson notes, official numbers in the U.S. do not include the partially vaccinated. Authorities claim a person is not fully protected until several weeks after they have had both doses, and so anyone who has received a shot but not completed the full course of treatment is treated as unvaccinated for statistical purposes. This is not how things are usually done with most medical treatments, nor is it the case in other countries. Thus, many U.S. COVID cases in the last few months attributed to unvaccinated individuals actually occurred in those who were partially vaccinated, a fact that is often suppressed and never reaches the ears of mainstream Americans.

Berenson also uses data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to show officials like Fauci are flat out lying when they say that only about 1 percent of the fully vaccinated are contracting or dying from COVID, when in reality around 10 percent of U.S. COVID deaths since the beginning of May 2021 have been in the vaccinated. That still is not a number to be ashamed of, Berenson says, so why don’t officials like Fauci simply tell the truth and admit that the vaccines last for a short time and won’t necessarily stop the virus from spreading?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1970 Nobel Lecture sheds some light on this question. “We shall be told,” he says, “what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds.”

According to the good ol’ dictionary, the use of force can be one meaning of the word violence. We may not yet be seeing physical force to get us to wear masks, take the vaccine, or stay locked down (although in some cases people actually have), but we are definitely seeing our government officials use other forms of coercion, through mass media messages and official talking points, to get us to conform to their way of thinking. And that force or violence, Solzhenitsyn explains, can only survive when it’s cloaked in falsehood:

Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.

We are being throttled with ever more force, a fact revealed by Berenson’s information about COVID, as well as by the increasing censorship he is encountering. This throttling will only continue in the weeks ahead, not only with regards to COVID, but in other realms as well. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we will allow this throttling and violence to continue. If we do not speak up, then we are a party to falsehood and violence just as much as are our elites.

The time to make a conscious choice about whether to choose truth or falsehood is fast approaching.

--

Dear Readers,

Big Tech is suppressing our reach, refusing to let us advertise and squelching our ability to serve up a steady diet of truth and ideas. Help us fight back by becoming a member for just $5 a month and then join the discussion on Parler @CharlemagneInstitute and Gab @CharlemagneInstitute!

Image Credit: 

Flickr-U.S. Secretary of Defense, CC BY 2.0

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist is the editor of Intellectual Takeout. When not writing or editing, she enjoys reading, gardening, and time with family and friends.

Add a Comment

 

Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!

or

Account Photo
JoyceBowen
-
And I found this one this morning: BioNTech Signs Collaboration Agreement with Pfizer to Develop mRNA‐basedVaccines for Prevention of Influenza dated August 16, 2018 https://joyce-bowen.blog/2021/07/31/biontech-signs-collaboration-agreement-with-pfizer-to-develop-mrna‐basedvaccines-for-prevention-of-influenza-dated-august-16-2018/
 
 

or

ArmyVet
-
It is people's choice to have the vaccine or not - personally I chose to have it even though I have a disease that makes me more prone to blood clots. Six months later I'm still fine people. Note - the truth is that 97% of those hospitalized and 99.4% of those who die never had one vaccine and whether you want to accept that or not is your choice. Either way what isn't a choice is taking responsibility for others - that is what good Western society members do. That is certainly what Christians do. This means staying at home and masking up on those rare occasions where you have to venture out. This is political but responsible.
 
 

or

sshive73
-
Typically I love your articles Annie. However, I am concerned about this article because of this one sentence that jumped out at me, "This is not how things are usually done with most medical treatments, nor is it the case in other countries." I'm not sure what "most medical treatments" you are referring to. The standard for Western Medical Practice is to follow the protocols of the clinical trials used for implementing said treatments , whether device, pharmaceutical or other. We usually refer to such usage, not following a protocol (typically with dosages, change in methodology, or applying the treatment to populations or diseases not studies in the original trial), as "off label." Granted our current vaccines were studied under an EUA. But just the same they were clinical trials that followed standard RCT methodology. That being said their efficacy outcomes and other data were based on a certain elapsed time after the required dosing (either 2 jabs or 1). So it would be inaccurate to use data that is based on NOT following the protocol of the clinical trial. Using such data can potentially be enlightening or provocative and often results in useful data for future study. So the above statement when seen in this light would make what seems to be a foundational part of your basic premise moot. There are plenty of issues of concern in the public debates. There are grave concerns about governmental overreach. But let's not invent one! Solzhenitsyn has much to say on this topic and should not be ignored. His quotes and related thoughts are spot on. Not the use of the data you refer to.
 
 

or

Joel Stevenson
Limited trails with a brand new vaccine vector ramroded through with complete immunity for the mqnufacturers. I think she has a point.
Account Photo
JoyceBowen
-
I just finished an article in reaction to a Stat news story saying they are going to fast-track the Pfizer shots for full usage. Needless to say, I am terrified. They are force vaccinating people around the world for a virus that doesn’t exist. I have a few videos in the article, and I have many, many videos—old ones from before the pharmaceutical industry owned everything—showing the harms these shots do. FDA, under pressure, plans ‘sprint’ to accelerate review of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for full approval https://joyce-bowen.blog/2021/07/30/fda-under-pressure-plans-sprint-to-accelerate-review-of-pfizers-covid-19-vaccine-for-full-approval/
 
 

or

X