Although government officials and opinion leaders yearn for the public’s respect, they still relate to us as young children.
“Dear compatriots, it is right to vaccinate, because those who are vaccinated are wise, they take care of their health and the welfare of society as well. It is our moral duty to vaccinate ourselves, and whoever does not do this is foolish and selfish. Vaccination is freedom! Become a vaccinator!”
They do not explain, do not argue, do not discuss, they only manipulate and present the only truth of their own.
It’s similar to how our parents force us to eat spinach, and if we don’t eat it, we can’t go out and play. The entire public space is awash with propaganda about the right vaccinations, which do not allow for alternatives. Whoever is vaccinated, gets a pacifier and a bow in his hair (or a few hundred thousand euros), and whoever does not listen, will be a bad boy/girl and go to shame.
All this is very disgraceful. More importantly, this is not true.
Although information intentionally modified in favor of nationwide vaccination continues to enter our public information market, the latest data from around the world says otherwise. Vaccination makes sense, but only because, even in the delta variant, it protects people from the acute course of the disease. But this certainly does not mean that everyone should be vaccinated. The delta variants and the current experience have brought many novelties:
- Even if you are vaccinated, you may get sick and transmit the disease. And either or only with a slightly lower probability of unvaccinated. So vaccination certainly does not give a person a shield from infection. This is, unfortunately, bad news for herd immunity, which thus essentially becomes an elusive construct.
- The effect of vaccination diminishes over time. For example, a person who was vaccinated half a year ago with Pfizer is no longer protected from severe course by 88%, but only by 60%. This was also confirmed by data from Britain from July, when 40% of people in hospitals were fully vaccinated. Therefore, many countries are pushing for revaccination with the third dose. The most dangerous old people were vaccinated in the spring, so the risk of developing a severe course is now significantly increased again.
It certainly makes sense to focus vaccination on high-risk groups. Here, the benefit versus risk is clearly favourable so far. But even that doesn’t mean that anyone with known risk factors (including age, male gender, obesity and many chronic diseases) should face a hard course or die of Covid. Even in the highest age group over 85, where the mortality rate is 600 times higher than in the twenties, “only” 35-50% of those infected die (data from the USA).
Statistics show that about 10% of those infected have a difficult course and 2% die from the disease. If we look at it from an optimistic point of view, then 90% of people have a mild course of infection. And the important fact is that The difficult course is not a matter of chance. And that the virus in it acts only as a key to unlocking Pandora’s box of personal immune malaise. Then there seem to be things that the virus doesn’t control.
People who sooner or later turn into uncontrollable inflammation are very likely to have some acquired (unexplained) immune dysfunction. This will allow the virus to activate massive inflammation, while at the same time failing its anti-inflammation mechanism. This is confirmed by experience from previous waves, where virus inhibitors had an effect on the course of the disease only if they were administered at an early stage. After the appearance of a strong inflammatory reaction, only anti-inflammatory therapy was able to reverse the course.
If we can trace the mechanism in the body responsible for this immune failure (or at least some of its signs, any indicator), then we can accurately identify these 10% and focus actions only on them.
Unfortunately, we didn’t succeed during the pandemic, but maybe more because we focused so much attention on and stopping the virus.
We now have an opportunity to block the difficult course of vaccination, and this appears to be a very effective approach at the moment. But we don’t know what will happen next. There is already a lambda variant circulating in the world, which is more resistant to vaccination, and there may be other variants that we need to prepare for.
On the other hand: we still have the rest We vaccinate 90% of the population unnecessarily – not on the basis of personal risks, but only on the basis of statistics. The data used in the argument in favor of vaccination can be very misleading to the average person. The epidemic is directed by general medicine (i.e. hygiene and epidemiology) and focuses on public health and data based on statistics and probability.
So, if an epidemiologist or hygienist argues that the benefits of a vaccine far outweigh the risks, that doesn’t mean that applies to me as an individual — at least not to Covide. It’s a valid statistic for a group in which mass vaccination protects more people from death than it does. When the statistics say that vaccinating a hundred people will protect ten of them from the difficult process, this certainly does not mean that vaccinating the ninety somehow helped protect the ten.
The vast majority of the population has zero (or almost no) risk of a severe course, which also means there is no benefit from the vaccine. Thus, even in this group, the low risk of a vaccine may outweigh the benefit.
(This statistical view is used across all areas of medicine, so for example, we give many people completely unnecessary drugs for high cholesterol.)
From the point of view of protecting our personal health, we clearly have no arguments that we can (without raping them) construct universal or compulsory vaccination..
And then we have it A public health and collective immunity viewpoint. Which in practice means that I should receive the vaccination not for my own protection, but to protect other members of the community. If I protect my loved ones by vaccination, I usually have a much greater motivation to undergo treatment that carries more risks than the benefit I get personally. But if I’m going to do this for the hypothetical goal of herd immunity, I need a much stronger conviction that my sacrifice really makes sense. However, vaccines have been developed against the original strain of the virus, and with the delta variant, their effect on the spread of the virus has been significantly weak. According to research and experiences from Israel and Britain, it is clear that cThe oocyst is also prevalent in the complete inoculum, although it appears to be slightly less than in the unvaccinated.
This fact has a significant impact on the overall benefits of non-risk vaccination. But optimists still talk about the possibility of mass immunity if we increase the proportion of vaccinated to 85%. However, many experts tend to never achieve this and the virus will be with us in some form for some time to come.
Also, we do not have convincing data yet that vaccination reduces the risk of new mutations, since the virus also replicates in those who have been vaccinated.
In the context of this data, it sounds like a lot to me It is more reasonable (or only reasonable) to change the pandemic strategy and focus as much as possible on the at-risk groupsAs do many countries. To praise Macron’s determination in compulsory vaccination seems to me to be a misunderstanding. I see the French approach as an expression of the superficial and super-ego, not a real effort to protect citizens.
But there are certainly many other ways to do as much as possible for public health without forcibly protecting non-vulnerable people against their will. especially:
- In the short term, focus as much as possible on the at-risk groups and, through a combination of methods (vaccination, immune support, lifestyle modification, weight loss support, epidemiological measures), reduce their risk of contracting COVID-19.
- In the long term, increasing the biological resilience of the entire population, for example, with an increased focus on exercise and mental health.
- Significantly improve communication. Post up-to-date, unbiased data and present it as clearly and content as possible. He argued more, threatened and punished less.
- Create a tool available (something like a risk calculator) with which everyone can calculate the individual risk of a challenging course after entering their personal risk factors. Do not underestimate the importance of balancing personal benefits and risks in general measures.
- Invest more in researching the mechanism of immune dysregulation that leads to switching to a disorganized inflammatory response
- Also focus on people’s mental state, because, among other things, the data clearly shows that chronic stress generally worsens the immune system and creates a pro-inflammatory behavior in the body.
- Establish clear rules about how contacts can be tested and traced, and isolation is used as effectively as possible in the near future. Keep in mind the purpose of using antigen tests.
- Defining the goal of our efforts as clearly as possible and the degree of responsibility of the individual, institutions and the state. It’s time for us all to start acting like adults.
We don’t really know the origin of the virus and why it has such a global impact. In the context of the climate crisis, I personally do not see it as a threat, but as an opportunity to reflect on the future of humanity and its biological capacity. If one of the goals of vaccination was to revive the economy, economy and industry to the original limit, we have learned nothing from this pandemic.
If you do not agree with me, discuss. Because factual discussion is exactly what we miss the most in these turbulent times.
“Organizer. Pop culture aficionado. Avid zombie scholar. Travel expert. Freelance web guru.”