Mike advocates that vaccination is a social responsibility issue, appealing to the masses by pretending that it's not about us as individuals - we're taking the shot for everyone else's benefit. The argument Mike presents is simple. The right of an individual to refuse to be vaccinated is enormously over-ridden by the greater good of protecting the rest of the population. In this instance of course, from a killer virus with an almost 100% survival rate. I hear the audible gasp of the crowd in my mind, as they collectively reel in shock at my claim that Covid-19 has an almost 100% survival rate. Well, here's where it comes from:
Current World Population: 7,898,238,564 (and rapidly ticking over)
Current known cases of Covid-19 (and variants): 237,339,750 (or 3.004% of the world population)
Current deaths: 4,844,821 (2.04% of known cases)
I know, I know - clearly people are indeed dying, right? But wait, let's break this down. Only 3% of the world's population has tested positive for Covid-19, and only 2% of those cases (or 0.06% of the world's population) has actually died from it.
So despite the over-hyped media propaganda most especially prevalent in the socialist grab for power across the Western world, it would appear that I have a 99.94% chance of not dying from Covid-19 as things stand today. At the absolute worst, these figures clearly show that I have a 97% chance of not dying from Covid-19 even if I am infected by it. And so does everyone else.
In his attempt to shift the focus of the Ardern's 'Jax Vax' Campaign from freedom of choice to freedom from harm, Mike does some pretty twerky mental acrobatics to show that we the Great Unvaccinated are likely to harm the good guys who submitted to vaccination. But the flaws of that argument ought to be pretty obvious even for a village idiot.
The most obvious flaw is this: shouldn't the vaccinated have an even better chance at survival than the rest of us? After all, without that promise there would have been no need to get vaccinated in the first place, right? So if I have a 97% chance of survival, a vaccinated person should have a far greater chance - frankly, anything less than 100% and I'd be asking for a darn refund!
Mike's analogies are great and all, but only if you don't think about them too much. Comparing being unvaccinated to drink driving wasn't the best of them. According to Mike's logic:
"You might make it home without crashing (i.e. get recover-at-home Covid), you might crash and sustain severe injuries (i.e. get ICU-level Covid) and you might severely hurt someone else (i.e. give someone Covid and/or make it hard for other people to access ICU because it is full of Covid cases)".
But Mike, I hear you say "If I recover at home, that's great. Statistically, most of the people in ICU's at the moment around the world are vaccinated people. And vaccination doesn't prevent transmission (and was never designed to) so even a vaccinated person can do that." Yep. Exactly. I'll let Mike do his own research on that, like the rest of us bumpkins did.
He goes on to say:
"We have laws that help the police detect and stop drunk drivers and laws that prohibit businesses from serving intoxicated persons because we know those people have the potential to harm not only themselves but, more importantly, the innocent people around them."
He's right of course. But what he fails to grasp is that we don't have laws that prevent consenting adults from drinking. He also didn't check the numbers. Granted in 2019, 160 people died where driver alcohol/drugs were a contributing factor, and we have not yet hit that extent on the CARM database of vaccine deaths. But the 2,327 injuries resulting from drink driving crashes, 391 of which were serious, are already being beaten into nothingness by the sheer number of reported vaccine injuries (mostly reported by doctors) showing up in the weekly vaccine injury reports. So actually, maybe Covid-19 vaccination is more harmful than drink driving, Mike. How's that for a goddam strawman?
Mike's real sucker punch doesn't come until he's hammered home the hopeless drink driving argument. For his next move he presents the guts of his freedom from harm concept:
"a person who chooses not to get vaccinated has the potential to harm others around them because: a) not everyone can get vaccinated; b) even a small percentage (six percent) of vaccinated people can still contract Covid-19; and c) unvaccinated people will disproportionally soak up medical resources."
Uh oh, Mike. You went to deep into the rabbit hole and it became an echo chamber for your own twisted version of misinformation. It's true, not everyone can get vaccinated. But isn't that a big chunk of the whole point? How do you presume to know my reasons for not being vaccinated? How dare you! The popularity of punitive coercion tactics is certainly showcasing an amazing number of judgy little Karens who live among us.
And you say a small percentage of vaccinated people can still contract Covid-19? Small!?!? Are you sure about that? That's not the science, Mike. Pfizer never said that you won't get infected, they only promised that you wouldn't have overwhelming and serious illness. Vaccinated people get infected, get sick, transmit the virus, and even die. There are no guarantees. That's why your government opted out contractually from liability and granted the same luxury to Pfizer. And by the way, for my third run at your fallacy, it's vaccinated people who are disproportionately soaking up medical resources right now. That's just the sheer weight of numbers. The more countries are vaccinating, the more the hospitals are getting vaccinated people showing up seriously ill. "Do your own research, Mike!"
For his last try at convincing the Great Unvaccinated Mob, Mike shifts gear to an analogy about lifeguards. Trouble is, the lifeguard analogy quickly deteriorates into a moral argument that does not paint the coercer in a good light. Should we refuse hospital admission and medical treatment to unvaccinated people? They chose not to 'swim between the flags' after all. You're on dangerous ground there, buddy. A sure fire way to create a deeper divide between the people is to create a deeper divide.
One of the greatest lessons I have learned in life while spending years negotiating with my opponents is this: if you want a resolution, you need to respect the other person's opinions and decisions - even if you don't agree with them. That doesn't mean you can't put your own opinion across of course, but it does mean that we have to learn to agree to disagree in order to move on. One certainly does not win an argument by insulting, threatening, or demeaning his opponent. Take heed, Mike.
Here's how this is going to work. I will make choices for my body. You make choices for yours. I don't drive drunk. I'm 97% sure that I won't take up your precious resources. And I happen to have a certificate that says I'm competent in ocean rescue.
Guy Fawkes night is coming up. Maybe it's time to set fire to the strawman once and for all!
0 comments:
Tell me what you think by leaving a note!
Please make sure that your comments are respectful, not spam, and on topic. Comments are moderated before being posted. (4096 characters max.)