Crafting an Exit Strategy from Universal Vaccination Failure

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 20 Sep 2021

Anthony Judge | Laetus in Praesens - TRANSCEND Media Serice

Prudent Preparation for the Probability and Impact of the Unforeseen

Introduction

20 Sep 2021 – There is clearly a major global consensus by authorities on the strategy of universal vaccination as the primary response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This is justified by them in the light of interpretations of available evidence and modelling with regard to herd immunity — for which there is necessarily no hard evidence in the current case.

It has already become apparent that, even when fully vaccinated as required, people remain vulnerable to new variants of the virus and as agents of its transmission (Noga Tarnopolsky, Ultra-Vaxxed Israel’s Crisis Is a Dire Warning to America, Yahoo News, 24 August 2021; Sara Middleton, The COVID shot is a complete failure, according to scientific data, NaturalHealth365, 10 September 2021; Helen Sullivan, Singapore reports biggest spike in Covid cases in a year despite 81% vaccination rate, The Guardian, 15 September 2015; Joshua Cohen, Among Fully Vaccinated, Breakthrough Covid-19 Infections Are More Common Than Previously Thought: Does It Matter? Forbes, 22 July 2021; Julie Steenhuysen, US data show rising ‘breakthrough’ infections among fully vaccinated, Reuters , 25 August 2021).

Another indication of probable future failure is the expressed concern at the waning effectiveness of vaccines (Is Vaccine Immunity Waning? The New York Times, 30 August 2021; New CDC studies point to waning immunity from vaccines, Politico, 24 August 2021; Covid infection protection waning in double jabbed, BBC News,  25 August 2021; Experts show waning effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines over time, News Medical Net, 1 September 2021). This frames the question as to the requisite frequency of booster shots — yearly, quarterly, or more frequently? (Breakthrough infections and booster shots: what you need to know, The Guardian, 21 August 2021).

It remains unclear whether the vaccines will be adequate to contain the future evolution of the pandemic — despite unquestionable formal assertions by authorities of a return to normality following comprehensive vaccination, whether 70%, 80%, 90%, or complete. The degree of commitment to the strategy has nevertheless been emphasized by the executive order of the President of the USA in September 2021 mandating the vaccination of 100 million American employees — irrespective of their wishes in that matter (Biden announces new vaccine mandates that could cover 100 million Americans, CNN, 10 September  2021). Other countries are expected to follow that example.

In this context it is therefore prudent — according to the Precautionary Principle — to explore the possible future need of authorities for an “exit strategy” from the global commitment to universal vaccination. Such an exploration calls for recognition of the role in the popular imagination of the unprecedented global consensus enabled by authorities and the credibility that it has evoked.

Such imaginings could be understood as having acquired mythical proportions, as indicated by a degree of acceptance of vaccination as a panacea and a “silver bullet” through which the terrifying virus could be eradicated. This is matched by a promised return to normality as a “light at the end of a tunnel”, as discussed separately (Enabling the “New Normal” through “Renormalization”, 2021). The quest for the ultimate vaccine in response to viral threat is even reminiscent of the mythical quest for an “elixir of immortality” (India frets over wastage of ‘elixir-like’ Covid-19 vaccines, Reuters, 18 March 2021)

Other than widely disseminated imaginative depictions of the form of the virus, missing from public discourse are images indicative of the significance of both universal vaccination and of the desired normality to which return is promised. Both are presented verbally, typically in the form of text, possibly enhanced by challenging statistics. The mainstream narrative merits enrichment by imagery with which people can engage. Presentation of such experimental images is the purpose of the following argument.

Evoking imaginative engagement is a means of preparing people for other ways of responding to unforeseen risks in the event of failure (Engendering 2052 through Re-imagining the Present, 2012). Arguably the future may come to deplore the extent to which, in strategic terms, authorities have placed “all their eggs in one basket”, rather than spreading the risk between complementary strategies in response to the pandemic. This unquestioned tendency has been only too evident in the catastrophic failure of the costly intervention in Afghanistan over a period of two decades.

The problematic consequences are compounded, as is only too evident in the case of vaccination, by ever increasing suppression of alternative perspectives and their systematic condemnation as misinformation. Even when presented by medical professionals, these are either ignored or deliberately conflated with dangerous misinformation (130+ UK Doctors: Failed COVID Policies Caused ‘Massive’ Harm, Especially to Children The Defender, 27 August 2021). For example, the latter highlights:

• No attempt to measure the harms of lockdown policies
• Institutional nature of COVID, in being especially characteristic of institutional environments
• The exaggerated nature of the threat
• Active suppression of discussion of early treatment using protocols being successfully deployed elsewhere
• Inappropriate and unethical use of behavioural science to generate unwarranted fear
• Misunderstanding of the ubiquitous nature of mutations of newly emergent viruses
• Misunderstanding of asymptomatic spread and its use to promote public compliance with restrictions
• Mass testing of healthy children, treating them like some sort of biohazard is harmful, serves no public health purpose and must stop
• Vaccination of the entire adult population should never have been a prerequisite for ending restrictions
• Over-reliance on modelling while ignoring real-world data

Ironically, a challenge for authorities in the quest for any exit strategy from universal vaccination is that the greater the suppression, and the greater the percentage of the population forcibly vaccinated, the fewer will be the pool of people that can be upheld as blameworthy in the event of any strategic failure. Curiously this challenge is not acknowledged in the current modelling of the pandemic (Misleading Modelling of Global Crises: unquestioned bias in authoritative representations of reality by science? 2021).

The argument concludes with consideration of the envisaged need for a Nuremberg-style trial to clarify the legal question as to whether mandatory universal vaccination with experimental vaccines is in violation of the Nuremberg Code (1947) — as variously claimed and vigorously denied. Potentially understood as a memetic disease, consideration is also given to the possible need for corrective deprogramming of those infected by a memetic virus which has semingly mutated from other variants in the past. In that sense deprogramming can be recognized as having been deployed under other names, including deradicalisation, re-education, and denazification.

Will anything be learned from the questionable preoccupation with exit strategies from Afghanistan or Iraq — or with dependence on non-renewable resources?

Rather than the primary focus on the “exit strategy” of the instigators of “universal vaccination”, this argument may also be explored in terms of the “escape strategy” for those exposed to their “universal indoctrination”.

TO CONTINUE READING Go to Original – laetusinpraesens.org

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.