Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Vaccine mandates

Broad Vaccine Mandates Are a Serious Violation of Civil Liberties

You don't have to be anti-vaccine to oppose these ever-expanding requirements.

Robby Soave | 1.24.2022 12:30 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Image from iOS | Christian Britschgi
(Christian Britschgi)

Washington, D.C., played host to a political rally this weekend, and one you might not have heard much about in the media. If you did hear something, it was probably negative. I speak, of course, about the anti–vaccine mandate rally at the Lincoln Memorial.

Some who attended spread incorrect information about the vaccine, wrongly warning that it was dangerous or had resulted in widespread death. Robert Kennedy Jr., who is perhaps the leading anti-vaccine figure in American political life, spoke at the event. Robert Malone, an immunologist who pioneered mRNA vaccines and recently gained notoriety after appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast, spoke as well.

Malone is an accomplished man, but he's wrong to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines don't work and cause serious harm. Even today, even with the omicron variant, it remains the case that the overwhelming majority of people who die from COVID-19 are unvaccinated. Moreover, the vaccines are not dangerous—they are certainly not more dangerous than the disease itself.

To the extent that this was a rally against vaccination, it was misguided.

But some of the people who showed up on Sunday were making a narrower point, and one that's clearly correct: The government should not have the power to force you to make a private medical decision that has little effect on anyone else. Your vaccination status is, by and large, your business. The vaccines are not substantially blocking the spread of COVID-19: We all know countless vaccinated people who've caught the disease. This is particularly true of the omicron wave: It's great to be vaccinated, but the vaccine is not preventing you or your close contacts from contracting COVID-19. The vaccine is a personal health decision. It protects the person who gets it, and thus it's not really the government's business.

Yet countless municipalities, including our nation's capital—the site of this weekend's protest—are broadly mandating vaccination. In D.C., if you want to enter a restaurant, you have to show not just your vaccine card, but also a photo ID—like a driver's license—in order to prove that the card is really yours.

Note that D.C.'s COVID-19 mitigation policies have been, at all times, foolish. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser reimposed a mask mandate to deal with delta, even though the mayor herself had been partying maskless the night before. The district's vaccine mandate took effect last week, ostensibly to deal with omicron, but guess what? Omicron is largely over in D.C. Cases are plummeting.

DC covid cases absolutely cratering, you love to see it. https://t.co/rxGJkhezp6 pic.twitter.com/uxgVGMFyqF

— Justin Logan (@JustinTLogan) January 22, 2022

We will never stop cases no matter how desperately we mandate vaccines, masks, and everything else. The only thing we can control is deaths, but the government shouldn't force this choice on people. You shouldn't have to show identification to participate in social life—to leave your home. Isn't that something Democrats used to believe—or still pretend to believe? Certainly, in some cases, it is:

Republicans ???????????????? to scream & shout about "small government" until it comes to your reproductive freedom. pic.twitter.com/48PPfvuRVQ

— DCCC (@dccc) January 21, 2022

That's an advertisement from the committee to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives. The thrust of the ad is that nefarious, moralizing Republicans are coming between you and your private medical decisions. Is that wrong? Of course. But the Democratic Party, vis-a-vis its leaders at the local level, and its national leader President Joe Biden, is wholly committed to the idea that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency of unelected bureaucrats, gets to interfere in your private medical decisions. You can't go anywhere without its permission. That's currently the Democratic Party's central policy commitment: Anthony Fauci knows best. Democratic leaders will make you provide a vaccine card and ID to participate in social life, civil liberties be damned.

It's funny, because in other circumstances, this would be the sort of thing that progressive civil liberties organizations opposed. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has waged war on the concept of voter ID laws—the idea that you should have to provide a photo ID in order to vote.

"Voter ID laws deprive many voters of their right to vote, reduce participation, and stand in direct opposition to our country's trend of including more Americans in the democratic process," writes the ACLU. "Many Americans do not have one of the forms of identification states acceptable for voting. These voters are disproportionately low-income, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and people with disabilities.  Such voters more frequently have difficulty obtaining ID, because they cannot afford or cannot obtain the underlying documents that are a prerequisite to obtaining government-issued photo ID card."

But when it comes to vaccine passports—a roughly equivalent restriction on people's civil liberties—the ACLU has not denounced them. On the contrary, it wholeheartedly supports them.

"We see no civil liberties problem with requiring COVID-19 vaccines in most circumstances," writes the ACLU. "In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties."

If we lived in a world where progressive defenders of civil liberties were actually doing the right thing and fighting back against vaccine mandates, it would be easier to completely ignore and write off Malone and the anti-vaccine cranks who gathered in Washington, D.C., this weekend. But we live in a world where many of the supposed defenders of civil liberties have sided with the state. COVID-19 mitigation policies grow more unreasonable and oppressive—and more disconnected from reality—with each passing day. What is the ACLU doing about it? Nothing.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Virginia's Awful Alcohol Laws Could Finally Get Fixed, Thanks to COVID and Gov. Youngkin

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

Vaccine mandatesCoronavirusVaccinesACLU
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (174)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

    Too late. Far, far, far too late.

    1. Union of Concerned Socks   3 years ago

      Amen. Where the fuck was this column circa April 2020?

      1. n00bdragon   3 years ago

        He only recently realized those cocktail party invitations weren't coming either way.

        1. JWatts   3 years ago

          To be fair, they told Robby that the cocktail parties were cancelled due to Covid. He only just learned that this was a lie.

          1. Melissa R. Thomas   3 years ago

            Earning dollars every month while staying at home in this pandemic. stay safe and earns more than $800 every single day. last month i made $30000 from this and i do this job just after my college for maximum 2 hrs. a day. klc Simple and easy work to do and regular earning from this are pretty good.
            Go to this website right now for info about this…….. http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/

            1. Woodchipper for Preet Bharara @ preet.bharara@nyu.edu   3 years ago

              Maybe Reason.com should go back to hating on Trump? Since Trump was so awful and Biden was a fresh ass squeeze?

              ascii

              ………………………………………………………………………TDS
              …………………………………………………………….TDS….. TDS…TDS
              …………………………………………………TDS……………………TDS..TDS
              ………………………………………….TDS………………………………..TDS
              ……………………………………TDS
              ………………………………..TDS
              ……………………„„-~^^~„-„„_
              ………………„-^*” : : „” : : : : *-„
              …………..„-* : : :„„–/ : : : : : : : ‘\
              …………./ : : „-* . .| : : : : : : : : ‘|
              …………/ : „-* . . . | : : : : : : : : |
              …………\„-* . . . . .| : : : : : : : :’|
              …………/ . . . . . . ‘| : : : : : : : :’|
              ………./ . . . . . . . .’\ : : : : : : : |
              ……../ . . . . . . . . . .\ : : : : : : ‘|
              ……./ . . . . . . . . . . . ‘\ : : : : : /
              ……/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . *-„„„„-*’
              ….’/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘|
              …/ . . . . . . . ./ . . . . . . .|
              ../ . . . . . . . .’/ . . . . . . .’|
              ./ . . . . . . . . / . . . . . . .’|
              ‘/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’|
              ‘| . . . . . \ . . . . . . . . . .|
              ‘| . . . . . . \„_^- „ . . . . .’|
              ‘| . . . . . . . . .’\ .\ ./ ‘/ . |
              | .\ . . . . . . . . . \ .” / . ‘|
              | . . . . . . . . . . / .’/ . . .|
              | . . . . . . .| . . / ./ ./ . .|
              | . . . . . . .| . . \ ./ ./ . .|
              | . . . . . . .| . . . ./ .\ . .|

              ……..…. ▄▄ ▄▄
              ….……▄▌▒▒▀▒▒▐▄
              ..…. ▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
              ..… ▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
              ..….▐▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▌
              ..….▐▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..….▐░░░░░░░░░░░▌
              ..…▄█▓░░░░░░░░░▓█▄
              ..▄▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ▀▄
              .▐░░░░░░░▀▄▒▄▀░░░░░░▌
              ▐░░░░░░░▒▒▐▒▒░░░░░░░▌
              ▐▒░░░░░▒▒▒▐▒▒▒░░░░░▒▌
              .▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▄▀▒▀▄▒▒▒▒▒▄▀
              ….. ▀▀▀▀▀…..▀▀▀▀▀

              ………………………………………._¸„„„„_
              …………………….……………„–~*’¯…….’\
              ………….…………………… („-~~–„¸_….,/ì’Ì
              …….…………………….¸„-^”¯ : : : : :¸-¯”¯/’
              ……………………¸„„-^”¯ : : : : : : : ‘\¸„„,-”
              **¯¯¯’^^~-„„„—-~^*'”¯ : : : : : : : : : :¸-”
              .:.:.:.:.„-^” : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :„-”
              :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: : : : : : : : : : ¸„-^¯
              .::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. : : : : : : : ¸„„-^¯
              :.’ : : ‘\ : : : : : : : ;¸„„-~”
              :.:.:: :”-„””***/*’츒¯
              :.’: : : : :”-„ : : :”\
              .:.:.: : : : :” : : : : \,
              :.: : : : : : : : : : : : ‘Ì
              : : : : : : :, : : : : : :/
              “-„_::::_„-*__„„~”

              ░░░░█─────────────█──▀──
              ░░░░▓█───────▄▄▀▀█──────
              ░░░░▒░█────▄█▒░░▄░█─────
              ░░░░░░░▀▄─▄▀▒▀▀▀▄▄▀──OH─
              ░░░░░░░░░█▒░░░░▄▀──YEAH,─
              ▒▒▒░░░░▄▀▒░░░░▄▀──LET ME─
              ▓▓▓▓▒░█▒░░░░░█▄───SNIFF──
              █████▀▒░░░░░█░▀▄───YOUR ─
              █████▒▒░░░▒█░░░▀▄───HAIR─
              ███▓▓▒▒▒▀▀▀█▄░░░░█──────
              ▓██▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█░░░░█─────
              ▓▓█▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▒▒█░░░░░█────
              ░▒▒▀▀▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀░░░░░░░█───

              ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
              ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠟⠉⠄⣀⡤⢤⣤⣈⠁⣠⡔⠶⣾⣿⣿⣿
              ⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠋⠁⠄⠄⠄⣼⣿⠁⡀⢹⣿⣷⢹⡇⠄⠎⣿⣿⣿
              ⣿⣿⣿⠿⠛⠉⠁⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠹⣇⣀⣡⣾⣿⡿⠉⠛⠒⠒⠋⠉⢸
              ⡿⠋⠁⠄⠄⢀⣤⣤⡀⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈⠙⠛⠛⠉⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈
              ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⢹⣧⡈⠿⣷⣄⣀⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⢀⣠⢄⣾
              ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈⠻⢿⣶⣌⣙⡛⠛⠿⠶⠶⠶⠶⠶⠖⣒⣒⣚⣋⡩⢱⣾⣿
              ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈⠉⠛⠛⠛⠻⠿⠿⠟⠛⠛⠛⠉⢉⣥⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿
              ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠒⠶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
              ⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠄⠈⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
              ⣿⡿⠛⠛⠛⢻⣿⠿⠛⠛⠛⢿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠛⠛⢻⡟⠛⣿⡿⠛⣻⣿⣿⣿
              ⡟⠄⣼⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣾⣿⣧⠄⢻⡏⠄⣼⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⡟⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿
              ⡇⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠄⣿⣿⣿⠄⢸⡇⠄⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⠄⣀⠈⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿
              ⣿⣄⠈⠙⠛⢻⣧⡄⠙⠛⠉⣠⣿⣷⣄⠈⠙⠛⢹⡇⠄⣿⣧⠄⠻⣿⣿⣿

              ______________________▀█▀█▄
              _________________▄█▀____█____▀█▄
              _______________▄█▀_______________▀█▄
              ______________█______________________█
              ______________█_____________________█
              ______________▀█▄▄____█______▄█▀
              __________________█____▄▀▄____█
              __________________█__▀_____▀__█
              __________________█_____________█
              __________________█_____________█
              __________________█_____________█
              __________________█_____________█
              __________________█_____________█
              _________▄█▀▀█▄█______________█▄█▀█▄
              ___▄█▀▀_________▀______________________▀▀█
              █▀____________________________________________▀█
              █________________________________________________█
              █_____________________▄█▄_____________________█
              ▀█_________________█▀__▀█________________█▀
              __▀█▄___________█▀______▀█__________▄█▀
              _______▀█▄▄▄█▀____________▀█▄▄▄█▀

              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣤⠞⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢤⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠠⠄⠤⠐⠚⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠓⠢⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠤⣖⣶⣭⣷⣼⣄⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⣫⣭⣴⣶⣦⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⣪⣿⣿⣿⠿⢿⣿⣿⠻⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣼⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣧⡀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⣩⣿⣿⡟⣿⣠⣼⣿⣧⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⢸⣤⣼⣿⣿⠻⣿⣿⠀⠀
              ⠀⢀⣿⣿⡟⠀⠹⣿⣿⣿⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⣿⠏⠀⢹⣿⡄⠀
              ⠀⠈⢿⣿⡃⠀⠀⠀⠉⢁⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣀⠈⠀⠀⠀⢰⠟⡇⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠉⠗⠖⠀⠊⠉⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠰⠀⠀⠈⠙⠛⠒⠀⠐⠆⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣴⣒⣢⣤⣤⣤⣤⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠻⣝⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⣻⠎⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
              ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⣈⡭⠭⣭⠴⠚⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀

              ……..…. ▄▄ ▄▄
              ….……▄▌██▀███▐▄
              ..…. ▐▒████████▌
              ..… ▐▒██████████▌
              ..….▐▒▀███████▀▀▌
              ..….▐▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▌
              ..….▐███████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..….▐░██████████▌
              ..…▄█▓███████████▄
              ..▄▀░█████████████▀▄
              .▐░█████▀▄▒▄▀░█████▌
              ▐░████████▐▒████████▌
              ▐▒████████▐▒████████▌
              .▀▄█████▄▀█▀▄▒████▄▀
              ….. ▀▀▀▀▀…..▀▀▀▀▀

              1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

                Wow. Your attention to detail is disturbing.

              2. R Mac   3 years ago

                Why?

            2. Woodchipper for Preet Bharara @ preet.bharara@nyu.edu   3 years ago

              Republicans ???????????????? to scream & shout about "small government" until it comes to your reproductive freedom.

              Killing the unborn is not reproduction. In fact, nobody cares about your reproduction at all. Reproduce at any time, or not at all. But let's be honest with ourselves - killing the unborn is not "reproductive freedom" any more than killing a child is. The issue isn't the "reproduction part" it's the "killing" part. And surely libertarians have to draw some lines on freedom right? You aren't free to steal, you aren't free to murder. etc. etc.

              1. Eeyore   3 years ago

                Killing your children will prevent grandchildren.

                1. daveca   3 years ago

                  too late. A- sexual reproduction in play there

  2. Zeb   3 years ago

    Robby, thanks for the clear and unambiguous headline and major point.
    But if you are going to declare that something "works", it's good to define what your criteria are for working first. Yes, the vaccines seem to work in some sense. They don't do absolutely nothing. But they definitely don't work in the way that everyone hoped they would by creating a strong enough herd immunity to largely eliminate major outbreaks and widespread illness. Simply to claim that "they work" is fairly dishonest as the definition of "works" has been shifting a lot over the past year.

    1. Overt   3 years ago

      Except Robby doesn't claim they "work" and just leave it at that. He specifically says, " The vaccines are not substantially blocking the spread of COVID-19...the vaccine is not preventing you or your close contacts from contracting COVID-19... It protects the person who gets it."

      So I think that is about as clear as he needs to be.

      This doesn't change the fact that mere months ago, many of the usual suspects online and even in these comments were insisting the opposite- that Vaccines prevent the spread, and protect you from getting sick in the first place. It is laudable to point out that those people were wrong, and that their attempts today to lecture us about the science should be taken as seriously as their attempts to lecture when they were wrong a few months back.

      1. Zeb   3 years ago

        Fair. I must have skimmed too lightly on my first reading.
        Robby is doing a lot of good stuff.

      2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        People were going with the information they had at the time. Doesn't make them liars.

        1. Its_Not_Inevitable   3 years ago

          It made them holier-than-thou, sanctimonious tools of the highest order. And as the story shifts, so do they, staying firmly entrenched as holier-than-thou, sanctimonious tools of the highest order.

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            Encouraging people to get vaccinated is holier-than-thou. Got it.

            1. Zeb   3 years ago

              No, it's the trying to shame people into getting vaccinated and dismissing all concerns and doubts that is holier-than-thou shit.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                There's a difference between dismissing all concerns and pointing out that some concerns are nonsense.

                1. Zeb   3 years ago

                  Yes, and some of the concerns are indeed nonsense. But there are a lot of non-idiotic concerns and objections that are frequently ignored or mocked by media people and government officials.

                  1. Overt   3 years ago

                    (And mocked by people on this message board...people who are conspicuously absent from the comments lately.)

                    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      And what's wrong with that? Sure it's rude, but it's a heck of a lot better than advocating for the use of force.

                    2. Overt   3 years ago

                      Other than the mocking using incorrect information makes one look a might bit foolish? Probably nothing.

              2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                The trouble is that many people believe some really stupid shit. I think that for many they are rationalizing a stance they came to emotionally, rather than seeking out information before forming an opinion. You can't reason people out of rationalizations. So I don't care anymore. If people want to believe stupid shit, let them.

                1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  Yes. Your beliefs that masks stopped the virus, that they then protected others and not you, that all therapeutics were worthless, etc was you believing really stupid shit.

                  Even last week you were still doing the "if it isnt 100%" bullshit to justify your moral preening jackass.

                  You dismissed countless studies and information to repeat the state narrative because you felt conservatives took a stance contrary to you.

                  Youre who zeb is talking about shit weasel.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    I mean fuck sarc. You've even said Australian camps were fine because they were just quarantine camps even after people told you half the people there were never infected.

                    So fuck off.

                    1. Sevo   3 years ago

                      "...You've even said Australian camps were fine because they were just quarantine camps even after people told you half the people there were never infected..."

                      According to Misek, the Nazi gas chambers were intended for de-lousing, but the krauts just couldn't get the dose correct!
                      The steaming pile of left shit sarc is in fine company!

                    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

                      "even after people told you half the people there were never infected"

                      Which is why his protestations of principles over principals is such a fucking joke.

                      Sarcasmic knew that the places he was calling "quarantine camps" were interning people, citizens, not visitors, who didn't have Covid and never had Covid. And not just one or two, but a large proportion. He definitely knew... and he still pretended it was just about quarantine.

                      He's an evil little troll.

                2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                  Oh look. The people I was talking about. I wonder what they have to say...

                  Ha! Just kidding.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    Hey look, someone who brags about being intellectually ignorant!

                3. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

                  You also can't reason with drunks.

        2. Zeb   3 years ago

          Not liars (in the first place anyway). But when they won't simply say "well, looks like we were wrong about how the vaccines were going to work, it's still a good idea to get it, but it's not going to stop the virus" it becomes something closely akin to lying. And the people still talking as if the vaccines would totally still work like that if everyone would just get on board are lying. Or idiots.

        3. n00bdragon   3 years ago

          Perhaps something has been learned about hastily reaching conclusions and then bludgeoning people with "the science"

          Ah, who am I kidding?

        4. Overt   3 years ago

          "People were going with the information they had at the time. Doesn't make them liars."

          Did I call anyone a liar? But they were wrong and woefully so. And even as it was becoming clear that the vaccine wasn't as cracked up as it ought to be, many people never moderated their message and continued to insist (in the face of waning evidence) that the vaccine would protect one from infection, or stop the spread.

          As recently as late July, we knew that the Vaccine was breaking through, and yet people were still online and here in these comments insisting with utmost surety that people had a moral obligation to stop the spread and protect loved ones.

          No, they were not liars. They just lacked the humility to realize that they might be wrong, and have now pivoted to sound EQUALLY certain about the vaccine as self-protection as they pretend they weren't laughably wrong in the first place.

          And despite being SO CERTAIN that they are right, they will be incorrect AGAIN in their insistence that everybody vaccinate to protect themselves from Wu Flu. They will be incorrect because a large minority (if not majority) of this country doesn't even need to protect themselves from the virus. Pretty much everyone under the age of 50 who does not have some other risk factor doesn't need this vaccination. But that won't keep the scolds (who have been wrong at every step of the rollout) from once again beating the drum to protect the public...er, their loved ones...er, yourself through vaccination.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

            They will be incorrect because a large minority (if not majority) of this country doesn't even need to protect themselves from the virus.

            This is just not true.

            Show me one study, just one, which demonstrates that the risk of an adverse event from the vaccine is higher than the risk of that same adverse event from the virus itself, with the exceptions of Guilles-Barre syndrome and PEG allergies.

            Saying "this number is small, and that number is small, they are all so small, so that they are all basically zero" is sloppy and incorrect. There are risks to getting sick and there are risks to getting the jab, and they are not the same, and neither one is equal to zero.

            1. Overt   3 years ago

              "Show me one study, just one, which demonstrates that the risk of an adverse event from the vaccine is higher than the risk of that same adverse event from the virus itself, with the exceptions of Guilles-Barre syndrome and PEG allergies."

              Why? It doesn't change the fact that a large minority (if not majority) of the country doesn't *need* the vaccine.

              "There are risks to getting sick and there are risks to getting the jab,"

              And there are risks of driving down town to get the jab. And there are risks to having your work shut down and risks of nannies getting you fired. Just because there is a tiny risk doesn't mean you *need* to mitigate it.

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

            And I will absolutely not apologize for encouraging people to get vaccinated. Because, in the vast majority of cases, *it is just the right thing to do*. Tell me, Overt, in your version of Libertopia, how does social change occur? There is no coercion from the state and there are no mandates, so the only way social change can occur is via social pressure. If you don't want people acting like assholes in Libertopia, how do you stop them from acting like assholes?

            1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

              Fuck you.

              Tell me why undercounted VAERS has more dead from the jab than OF Covid? Tell me why a drug with more adverse events than ALL OTHER VACCINES SINCE 1990 is still being promoted?

              Fuck you, fuck you and triple fuck you with Brandon's wilted noodle you lying sack of shit.

            2. Overt   3 years ago

              "And I will absolutely not apologize for encouraging people to get vaccinated."

              No one expects you to apologize. If you did, it would demonstrate that it is more important for you to be correct than to be morally outraged. You won't apologize for spending endless weeks trying to shame people for spreading the virus when it was known that the vaccinated were spreading the virus. Because it is more important for you to have "social change"- god damn the facts- than to be correct.

              "Tell me, Overt, in your version of Libertopia, how does social change occur?"

              However it wants to. The great thing about libertopia is that I don't have to give a fuck about what a person is doing outside town, as long as they are not violating the NAP. It is so simple.

              "If you don't want people acting like assholes in Libertopia, how do you stop them from acting like assholes?"

              You mean things like walking around shouting untruths while claiming to be experts on The Science! (tm) and not even apologizing about being wrong afterwords? Dunno. People seem to be assholes everywhere...At least in libertopia I don't have to deal with them breaking the NAP, as I do here.

              1. Overt   3 years ago

                This "You selfish Libertopians" complaint keeps coming up, so I guess it is worth a couple more words on it.

                "Social Change" only matters to a collectivist. In libertopia there is no need for "Social Change" because society is just what we call the expressed intentions of many people. In Libertopia, the question of what to do about people who are going hungry is, "Am I going to do anything about it?" not "What are we gonna do about this?"

                That isn't to say there isn't room for collective action in Libertopia- just that if you are morally guided by the NAP, there really are few to no cases where one is compelled to act for the collective. As I have said before, in Libertopia we recognize that there are morally bad things (breaking the NAP), morally good things (like charity and doing favors for people without recompense) and then morally neutral things (everything else). In such a world, if people want to be cheered on for being morally good and generous, all the better. But people should not be shamed for being morally neutral.

                The great thing about Libertopia is that all of our questions are rendered down to a simple moral calculus as to whether or not the NAP is being violated. People are free to be assholes as long as they don't break the pact. There are certainly interesting corner cases around stuff like noise and sight pollution- but in general, those can be thought through using basic logic, just as we can logically conclude that no one has the moral obligation to protect another from nature.

                So in my preferred Libertopia, if you showed up trying to Shame me into fencing my property to prevent rabbits transiting it into your yard, I would probably smile and tell you to have a nice day. If you came again, trying to shame me more with scientific studies about how the Fence-o-nator 2021 reduces rabbit transit by 98.5% and that I therefore have a moral obligation to protect you from those rabbits because SCIENCE!, well at that point I start asking you to stop coming to my door, good neighbor. If you want to continue being an asshole about it, well now you are going from "morally neutral" to trespassing (morally bad).

                1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  "Social change" only matters to someone who lives in empirical reality. Even citizens of Libertopia will live in a society that has social problems. They do not all magically go away once everyone embraces the NAP. Isn't it one of the selling points of libertarianism that it is not preoccupied by these utopic fantasies that it is possible to "end poverty" or "end homelessness", only that these problems will be tackled by individuals operating cooperatively and consensually? So there are always going to be social problems, and sneering about "collectivists" doesn't cause them to go away.

                  In Libertopia, the question of what to do about people who are going hungry is, "Am I going to do anything about it?" not "What are we gonna do about this?"

                  And I cannot disagree with this more. In Libertopia, the question ABSOLUTELY is, "what are we going to do about this?", because there is no welfare state to pawn off the problem to. We HAVE to do something about it. Because again, poverty does not magically disappear once Libertopia is established. The standard libertarian solution to social problems is "private charity". And that is terrific. Well, private charity does not spring out of nothingness. Someone has to be the charitable volunteer or donor. And in Libertopia, that is all of us. There is no one else.

                  That isn't to say there isn't room for collective action in Libertopia- just that if you are morally guided by the NAP, there really are few to no cases where one is compelled to act for the collective.

                  The NAP is a floor, not a ceiling, on acceptable moral behavior. Of COURSE no one should violate the NAP. But people ought to be obligated to do much more than that. (Obligated by whom? By the dictates of their own moral consciences.) Again, if not individuals acting according to their own moral conscience, then who? If in Libertopia the response to the starving man is, "fuck you, I don't care if you starve, just as long as you don't starve on my property", then that Libertopia will not last very long. It will very quickly transition into the welfare state that we have today, where the welfare state is rationalized in utilitarian terms as "well, at least the poor aren't starving this way".

                  1. Overt   3 years ago

                    "They do not all magically go away once everyone embraces the NAP. Isn't it one of the selling points of libertarianism that it is not preoccupied by these utopic fantasies that it is possible to "end poverty" or "end homelessness", only that these problems will be tackled by individuals operating cooperatively and consensually?"

                    Nobody to my knowledge has said this. What is your evidence that Homelessness and Poverty are problems solvable by "Society"? No society to date has solved for the fact that some people have no home and that some people are poor. Given that no society in history has done this, then either your expectation of what society ought to fix is wrong, or no society in the history of man has ever lived up to this expectation.

                    "And I cannot disagree with this more. In Libertopia, the question ABSOLUTELY is, "what are we going to do about this?", because there is no welfare state to pawn off the problem to. We HAVE to do something about it."

                    Why? People have been poor and homeless since the dawn of time. This is the DEFAULT CONDITION of a human. If you don't hunt for food, you will die hungry. If you don't shelter yourself you will be homeless. There is no moral imperative for someone else to lift you out of your default state. That is on you.

                    It is in fact you who are trying to pawn off an individual's problems on society. You say, "Someone has to be the charitable volunteer or donor. And in Libertopia, that is all of us. There is no one else." This is just plain wrong. In Libertopia some people will be charitable other people will be focused on their own problems. Some people will depend heavily on the charity of others, while others will eschew it. Your belief that collectively "we" must do it is just that: collectivism.

                    And here is why it is collectivism: In ANY society, 100% of the people are not solving homelessness or poverty. Even in a most charitable society, some percentage of the people are doing their own thing (or are the people being given charity). So in fact "we" are not doing anything. Many individuals- a large segment or small- is doing this stuff. "We" as society are not, unless you believe that the collective is defined by what some people do- which is, you know, collectivist.

                    Whether 20% of society is charitable or 80%, there is no right or wrong. The only wrong is a society that fails to protect the freedoms of individuals to solve problems themselves or in voluntary cooperation with others.

                    "The NAP is a floor, not a ceiling, on acceptable moral behavior."

                    This doesn't make sense. Whether it is a floor or ceiling doesn't matter. It is all acceptable. That is good enough for me. I will accept a society where people are free to help each other or play video games. I will accept a society where 80% freely decides to spend their days in soup kitchens supporting the other 20%. All of them are acceptable, so why do you feel like there is a role in society to shame people for choosing one of those acceptable outcomes over another?

                    "If in Libertopia the response to the starving man is, "fuck you, I don't care if you starve, just as long as you don't starve on my property", then that Libertopia will not last very long."

                    Again, you are being collectivist. In Libertopia, there may be people giving the finger, and there would likely be people giving aid. So what is Libertopia's response to the starving man when there is a broad spectrum of responses to his need? There is no "Libertopia" response because Libertopia is not a collective being. It is a place where many individuals freely interact and solve problems as they see fit.

                    In any case, you continue to argue that it is society's place to solve these problems- despite the fact that Libertopia would not be alone in being a society that doesn't solve these problems. While I agree that many people might argue that this makes libertopia unfit as a society, so what? Those are the same morally confused people who argue for handing our society over to the Che's and Trotsky's for failing to solve Homelessness and Poverty. All you are doing is making a pragmatic argument- one that strikes me as deeply suspect by the way. Nothing has done more to improve the plight of poor than the voluntary exchange of goods and services. And yet we still have people insisting that there is a collective moral obligation to stop doing that and create a welfare state. I can't help the fact that people are crazy and think they can government their way out of a basic, default human condition. But they do it all the time.

                    Libertopia is the right answer because it is MORAL. Not because it fulfills some fantasy with chocolate dipped unicorns for everyone. The fact that it will likely also result in many of these problems being ameliorated (not solved) is just a bonus that comes with human cooperation. In the same manner, capitalism should be adopted because it is morally right to let people use their labor and property in mutual association with others. That it also is an enormous boon for the living conditions of everyone is a happy side effect- not a prerequisite.

          3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            "They will be incorrect because a large minority (if not majority) of this country doesn't even need to protect themselves from the virus."

            Maybe not now, but they probably will when they get old assuming this thing doesn't go away.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              And that is not even a correct statement from Overt.

              There are only two conditions for which the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus: Guilles-Barre syndrome, and PEG allergies. For everything else, either it doesn't matter, or the virus is worse than the vaccine.

              1. Overt   3 years ago

                Seriously, Chemjeff do you not understand that something can reduce a risk and not still be needed?

                It would probably decrease some risks to get more exercise. I don't need to, because I am generally healthy.

                Driving 5 MPH under the speed limit probably reduces my risk of death in a traffic accident. I don't NEED to do so.

                I am sure getting all three vaccines and boosting every 3 weeks is probably safe. I don't NEED to do it.

                When I say a large minority of the country doesn't need the vaccine, I am saying nothing about the relative risk of the vaccine. I am saying that the risk to these people from the virus is so low that vaccination shouldn't be on their list of priorities.

            2. Overt   3 years ago

              "but they probably will when they get old assuming this thing doesn't go away."

              Totally agree. But that is a problem that they can solve when the time comes. It is probably a good bet that whatever vaccine they eventually take will be substantially different than the ones on offer now, given the mutation raid of COVID.

        5. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

          Bullshit. We know from reading Fauci's emails that he had all the same information us seasonality theorists did. Only one of us has been correctly predicting virus movement for the last year+, though.

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18150-z

            So, is this article wrong? If so, why?

        6. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

          Except they knew otherwise, you drunk idiot.

      3. CaptainJack   3 years ago

        To be fair, many months ago when folks like me were claiming the vaccines were preventing spread, they were, against the Alpha Variant that was common at the time.

        The Delta came along and it was mutated enough that the vaccines were less effective at preventing infection and spread (though the CDC would have you believe it is just that the vaccines "wane", so that it didn't become obvious that the vaccines were just for an old variant) and now with Omicron they barely even slow down infections unless you are recently boosted and your body is producing massive amounts of mediocre antibodies.

      4. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

        They’re a lot more than just wrong. There’s a sick mania involved in pimping fear like this.

        And yeah, robbie’s ok, but I’d like to see this shit called out a little more strongly. Maybe not RFK JR. strong, but more than this.

  3. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

    Malone is an accomplished man, but he's wrong to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines don't work and cause serious harm

    Robbie, in the past-such as with Nicholas Sandmann-you've taken a stance based on watching a full video to get complete context before writing about something. I wonder if you did your due diligence before writing this.

    While Robert Malone did say that "The vaccines don't work," he elaborated by explaining that they are never going to be a path toward herd immunity because they're leaky. He also pushed back against words that have been to defend the vaccines by saying they are NOT "completely safe." And he said "if there is risk, there must be choice." Surely that's not a sentiment you find concerning?

    He also did speak at length about the risk to children from both the vaccines and the omicron variant. I didn't detect anything he was blatantly wrong about, even if he perhaps was overly strong in his rhetoric.

    1. Overt   3 years ago

      "He also did speak at length about the risk to children from both the vaccines and the omicron variant. I didn't detect anything he was blatantly wrong about, even if he perhaps was overly strong in his rhetoric."

      And this is what drives me bonkers. There is no way in the fucking world that the risk of the vaccine is lower for children than the risk of the actual virus. Because children are at statistically zero risk from the virus. If there is ANY risk at all to the vaccine, it is more risky. No child should be encouraged to take this vaccine, *unless* they have some pre-existing condition that would put them at higher risk from COVID. Anything else is not following the science.

      1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        "Because children are at statistically zero risk from the virus."

        And that was BEFORE the omicron variant was the predominant variant, which is less virulent than previous strains. I can't imagine any children under age 14 who is at risk from this version, but there have been hospitalizations from the shots and the boosters. And the government wants to force them to be vaxxed without the ability to sue Pfizer or Moderna for medical costs if their shot puts your child in the hospital.

        So even if those are extremely rare edge cases, it's still a health risk with no benefit being forced upon you, without choice, and with no relief.

        1. Overt   3 years ago

          "And that was BEFORE the omicron variant was the predominant variant, which is less virulent than previous strains"

          Small correction: Omicron seems MORE virulent than previous strains, just less serious.

          1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

            Virulent means severe. Omicron is more contagious, but less virulent.

            1. Overt   3 years ago

              You are right, sorry.

            2. Minadin   3 years ago

              I also (until now) thought Overt's previous definition was a valid one, so, thanks for the correction.

              1. CaptainJack   3 years ago

                To be fair, I think using virulent to mean severe is stupid.

                Virulent would seem to mean that it would be more "viral" and viral is generally understood to be faster spreading and contagious like a virus.

                But yep, it just means causes more severe illness.

      2. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

        Exactly right. In fact 99 percent of the population was never at serious risk from the virus. A lot of them got natural immunity from it and all of the variants. If there is any risk from the vaccine they would be wise to take a pass.

        1. Overt   3 years ago

          I would note that I and several people I know have had the virus twice. This should not be a surprise- the coronaviruses mutate and spread very quickly. Just because you have had it once does not mean you are immune forever. If you got the covid and you have risk factors (age, obesity) it's probably helpful to get the vaccine to protect yourself.

      3. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

        There is no way in the fucking world that the risk of the vaccine is lower for children than the risk of the actual virus.

        The risk of kids dying of COVID is higher than the risk of kids contracting myocarditis from the vaccine.

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-benefits-of-vaccinating-kids-against-covid-far-outweigh-the-risks-of-myocarditis1/

        1. Overt   3 years ago

          "The risk of kids dying of COVID is higher than the risk of kids contracting myocarditis from the vaccine."

          And once again we have someone insisting he knows the science. And for once, he is spectacularly wrong right off the bat. The article doesn't even say this, for crying out loud.

          Current estimates are that Myocarditis is around 30 - 200 per million. Around 94 have died of COVID out of 73 Million- that is less than 2 per Million. So you are absolutely wrong- the risk of dying of COVID is less than the risk of Myocarditis.

          (And note that we know those who died almost ALL had pre-existing conditions)

          1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

            You are right I should have said:

            The risk of being hospitalized with COVID is greater than the risk of contracting myocarditis.

            Here is another study. The IRR of contracting myocarditis for those under 40 years is smaller for all of the vaccines than it is for the virus itself.

            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0

            Specifically, see Table 4.

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              *The risk of being hospitalized with COVID is greater than the risk of contracting myocarditis from the vaccine.

              This is a true statement, no?

              1. Overt   3 years ago

                "The risk of being hospitalized with COVID is greater than the risk of contracting myocarditis from the vaccine.

                This is a true statement, no?"

                It is true but doesn't change what I have said. Unless a child has some pre-existing condition that puts them at greater risk from COVID, they have no need to vaccinate.

                In the GENERAL POPULATION, yes, the risk of hospitalization from COVID is higher than the risk of Myocarditis (and btw, YOU brought up Myocarditis, I did not). But the general population also includes kids with risk factors. Those kids should probably get vaccinated (as I said above).

                This is simple math. Estimates of 60 - 70% of the hospitalized children had comorbidities while Vaccine induced Myocarditis impact healthy kids. If you are talking about a healthy child, then you are not talking about 203 COVID Hospitalizations in a million. You are talking about (203 * 40%) 82 hospitalizations. That is compared to 156 myocarditis hospitalizations.

                So in the case of HEALTHY CHILDREN, what you say is not true.

                But, all that said, these are all TINY risks in the first place. Healthy kids have a .001% chance of ending up in the hospital from COVID. And a .015% chance of being put in the hospital for Myocarditis from the vaccine.

                1. Overt   3 years ago

                  "If you are talking about a healthy child, then you are not talking about 203 COVID Hospitalizations in a million. You are talking about (203 * 40%) 82 hospitalizations. That is compared to 156 myocarditis hospitalizations."

                  This data is from the model for MALE Children in the SA link Chemjeff previously posted.

                  1. Overt   3 years ago

                    Just an example-
                    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01627-9/tables/2

                    Out of 7050 kids admitted with COVID in the UK at the beginning of the pandemic, 3869 (55%) had comorbidities. Out of the 571 kids admitted to the Pediatric ICU 499 (83%!!!) had comorbidities.

                    So even if you are a generally healthy kid who gets COVID and is admitted to the hospital, the likelihood that you will need to go into the ICU with a serious illness is exceedingly small.

                2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                  Estimates of 60 - 70% of the hospitalized children had comorbidities

                  This is not in the SA article. Cite your work.

                  while Vaccine induced Myocarditis impact healthy kids.

                  Vaccine-induced myocarditis impacts all kids, healthy or not. Myocarditis doesn't strike *only* healthy kids.

                  So even assuming your 60-70% figure was correct, you'd have to multiply both figures - the COVID hospitalizations, and the excess myocarditis hospitalizations - by the same percentage. Net result is that the vaccine is still less risky than the virus.

                  1. Overt   3 years ago

                    "This is not in the SA article. Cite your work."

                    Example provided above- the number is actually 55% in that for the first year of the pandemic in the UK. But in the case of serious impact (being admitted into the ICU) 83% of kids had comorbidities.

                    "So even assuming your 60-70% figure was correct, you'd have to multiply both figures - the COVID hospitalizations, and the excess myocarditis hospitalizations - by the same percentage. Net result is that the vaccine is still less risky than the virus."

                    Uh...no you don't. This isn't how statistics work, Chemjeff. You are saying "Because 60% of kids in the hospital with covid have co-morbidities, 60% of kids hospitalized with Myocarditis will have co-morbidities." That isn't shown in the evidence at all.

                    https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056135

                    "These were predominantly young males requiring hospitalization for myocarditis and without a history of COVID-19 or comorbidities."

                    So absent any further data stating that vaccine-induced myocarditis is positively correlated with co-morbidities, my math stands.

                    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      No, what I'm saying is, myocarditis doesn't only occur to healthy kids. So you can't assume that the predicted 156 excess myocarditis cases would only occur on healthy kids. If according to your numbers 40% of kids are "healthy", then 40% of those 156 cases would be on "healthy" kids. To compare apples to apples, then, it still works out that the vaccine is less risky than the virus, even for healthy kids.

                    2. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                      I will say, though, that I appreciate a discussion that uses actual scientific studies, so thanks for that.

                    3. Overt   3 years ago

                      "No, what I'm saying is, myocarditis doesn't only occur to healthy kids. So you can't assume that the predicted 156 excess myocarditis cases would only occur on healthy kids."

                      I thought this went without saying, but children with comorbidities represent a tiny slice of our overall population. So if you are talking about removing kids with comorbidities from the population of myocarditis children, it is going to have a small effect.

                      For example, according to the ADA, about .25% of children have diabetes. so that shaves .4 Myocarditis hospitalizations off the number. Of course, when all these studies talk about "Co-morbidities" it is a grab bag of medical conditions, so we know that it is more than just diabetes. It probably includes leukemia and other cancers, among many other life threatening diseases. The number of children will be more than .25%, but it will be difficult to know just how much higher.

                      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7679116/

                      This article surveys multiple studies of COVID in children. While it is unlikely that the population of children in all these articles is an exact sample of the US, it is noteworthy that in 42 different studies, epidemiologists identified 275,661 healthy children to 9,353 children with comorbidities. If it *were* a decent sampling, that means ~3.4% of kids in this country have comorbidities.

                      So let's be generous and say 10% of the kids in the country should be removed from the tally of Myocarditis numbers. And let's forget about ICU's for a second and just say 55% of kids hospitalized for COVID have comorbidities.

                      If you are talking about healthy, male children, then out of a million vaccinated children, (156 * .9) 140 will be hospitalized for myocarditis in order to prevent (203 * .45) 91 Hospitalizations. If you want to talk about ICU visits- so SERIOUS cases, you are going to send (57 * .9) 51 kids to the ICU with heart inflammation in order to prevent (67 * .17) 11 kids from going to the ICU with COVID symptoms.

                      And just in case my back of the envelope data and estimations aren't enough for you, note that in order for the risk of myocarditis hospitalization to be less than COVID hospitalizations, over (91/156) 42% of the child population would have to have comorbidities, and that is just unrealistic.

                      I stand by the conclusions of my math: healthy children are at less risk from COVID than they are from the Vaccine. And, further, these risks are extremely small- smaller than the risk of the Flu, so agonizing over them is silly, and creating national vaccination programs to mitigate the risks is even sillier.

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                It is not true. You are citing cases of kids in the hospital with covid, not due to covid.

                I know multiple kids who were actually hospitalized "due to covid" because they had asthma and were put on a 24 hour watch but never actually needed to be hospitalized.

                Everything you say is from ignorance Jeff.

            2. Overt   3 years ago

              Chemjeff. 8,300 kids have been hospitalized for COVID in 2 years. The vast, vast majority have had some sort of pre-existing condition that put them at risk.

              The modeling on your link is suggesting that vaccination 1 Million girls will prevent a *net* 10 ICU hospitalizations and one death. It is a rounding error.

              1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

                Ah ah ah now you are shifting the goalposts.

                Originally it was, "There is no way in the fucking world that the risk of the vaccine is lower for children than the risk of the actual virus. "

                Now it is, well, okay, the risk for the virus is higher than the risk of the vaccine, but it's all so small it doesn't matter.

                Of course the numbers are small. But your original statement is false. The virus is more dangerous than the vaccine, in all but two types of events which I previously mentioned.

                1. Overt   3 years ago

                  No I am specifically talking about healthy children. That is why I qualified my paragraph with "Unless you have a pre-existing condition". But I'm sorry, I amend my statement for clarity:

                  "There is no way in the fucking world that the risk of the vaccine is lower for healthy children than the risk of the actual virus."

                  And I stand by that, as I showed in the math above.

        2. JesseAz   3 years ago

          300 kids have died from covid. Thousands have gotten myocarditis. What the hell are you talking about?

          1. Eeyore   3 years ago

            Now they have a comorbidity (heart problems), so when they contract covid they will be more likely to die.

        3. damikesc   3 years ago

          "The risk of kids dying of COVID is higher than the risk of kids contracting myocarditis from the vaccine."

          You are consistent with being wrong.

          The risk of them dying from COVID is effectively zero.

          Explain WHY the vaccine is necessary when you have virtually zero risk of dying from it, since the only thing the vaccine does is, in some cases, mitigate the damage.

  4. Bill Godshall   3 years ago

    "Malone is an accomplished man, but he's wrong to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines don't work and cause serious harm."

    I'll bet that increasingly arrogant Soave has never taken a course in infectious disease, virology, immunology. epidemiology or public health policy, nor listened to Joe Rogan's interview with Dr. Robert Malone at
    https://unherd.com/2022/01/we-need-to-talk-about-the-vaccines/

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   3 years ago

      Yeah I surprised to learn that Robbie knows more about virology than a guy who spent decades in the field. Fox news talking head, big time columnist, prolific Tweeter and a medical expert. Truely a Renaissance man.

    2. Bill Godshall   3 years ago

      In fact, covid vaccines have been both very effective at reducing risks of severe covid illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths among people who are obese, diabetic, other comorbidity sufferers and those over 60.

      But the covid vaccines have provided far fewer, if any, benefits for people with natural immunity (due to prior infection), otherwise healthy adults under 60, teenagers or children (who have exponentially lower risks of becoming sick, hospitalized or dying from covid).

      Meanwhile, some people have medical conditions that may trigger adverse reactions to the vaccines, and nobody yet knows the long term ramifications or side affects that covid vaccines may cause or contribute to in the future.

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

        There has not been a single study which has showed that the risk of an adverse effect from the vaccine is higher than the risk of that same adverse effect from the virus itself, with only two exceptions:

        - Guilles-Barre syndrome, which is specific to vaccinations; and
        - PEG allergies, which is specific to how the Pfizer vaccine is made.

        With everything else - myocarditis, blood clots, etc. - the risk from the virus is higher than the risk from the vaccine.

        And if I'm wrong, then prove it.

        1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

          That's partly a result of gaps in the data. The current assertion is that children, and specifically young males, are 30 times more likely to suffer myocarditis connected with COVID-19 than those who don't catch COVID.

          However, that's data going back to March of 2020, when testing was much more limited, and children typically have very mild presentation of COVID that does require hospitalization. Many of them are asymptomatic. It's likely that there's many more cases of COVID, perhaps even exponentially more, than were counted among children in which myocarditis did not present. The risk with COVID therefore may be overstated because it's only children who were developing severe symptoms who were admitted to a hospital and tested positive.

          On the other side, nobody accidentally gets vaccinated, so there's a much lower risk of underreporting-even though it still will happen. And it's increasingly shown that the Moderna vaccine, in particular, is creating an increase in myocarditis risk, especially in young males, as much as 37-times more likely than unvaccinated. That's basically equal to the risk of the COVID population, except the dataset is much more confident. Even the Pfizer vaccine is 19 more times likely to be associated with myocarditis compared to the unvaxxed population.

          At the very least there's enough uncertainty that there's a legitimate health question concerning the under-18 population. People who are concerned about it have good reason to be concerned, and it's beyond the pale for the government to mandate vaccinations for a group that is obtaining almost no benefit from the vaccine when there are actual risk factors associated with it. Because, as contagious as this is, there's a decent chance your child has already caught it, has natural immunity, and that getting vaccinated and boosted is just stacking the myocarditis risk on top of what they already have.

          People can still decide that balancing the risks favors getting their children vaccinated, but that is their decision to make and not the state's.

        2. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

          More vaxxed died in the initial fucking Pfizer trials you dipstick. More sickness was observed in the vaxxed groups period.

          I JUST slapped you in the face with undercounted VAERS to 5.5% OF Covid deaths the other day. "Prove it" is meaningless when you're dealing with a partisan hack. But here goes again.

          https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/11/17/more-people-died-in-the-key-clinical-trial-for-pfizers-covid-vaccine-than-the-company-publicly-reported/

          1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

            This is on top of the gov't accepting safety data from the manufacturers of a product.

            And that safety data wasn't even acceptable science - it was a farce of a drug trial that completely compromised the random control to inflate vax numbers.

            https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2021/08/10/this-is-nuts-moderna-pfizer-intentionally-lost-the-clinical-trial-control-group-testing-vaccine-efficacy-and-safety/

            1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

              I note your complete lack of credible studies to back your claims. Only hyperventilating blog articles.

              Your first article makes no effort to analyze data in a responsible manner. Even if more trial participants died with the vaccine than with the placebo - a claim that ought to be double-checked based on the generally paranoid nature of that sight - am I supposed to believe that the people who died of, say, "lung cancer", their deaths should be blamed on the vaccine? Your source makes no effort to parse the data in any good-faith manner. He is only interested in crowing that the Pfizer vaccine death number is higher, regardless of the reason why. And then of course at the end of the article is the standard beg:

              "The corrupt establishment will do anything to suppress sites like the Burning Platform from revealing the truth."

              That whole platform is not there to inform you. It is there to sell a product, and the product is - Resistance To The Corrupt Status Quo. I can confidently predict that this author will not write an article complimentary of the establishment, even if they deserve it, even if it was truthfully earned, because if they did, it would totally contradict their brand. He is a demagogue selling you crap.

              And your second article, your source wants to deliberately create a paranoid conspiracy in order to sell fear. Here is the truth: it is immoral to continue to give placebos to participants in a clinical trial when the results of that trial have shown that the vaccine is efficacious. Because the whole point of giving placebos is to test whether the vaccine IS efficacious. Placebos don't do anything, they give the recipient a false sense of security, because they THINK they are getting a vaccine when they really aren't. And if the vaccine is demonstrated to be efficacious, then there is no need to continue lying to the placebo recipients. Pfizer did what they were ethically obligated to do: once the results of the study were known, offer the placebo recipients the opportunity to take the real vaccine. This is not some paranoid conspiracy to "hide the truth". This is what ethical people do. Your source is the paranoid loon though, who, like the other source, is selling Rebellion and Resistance as a product, rather than knowledge and enlightenment. Remember this the next time you cite these sources.

              1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

                You mean the sources citing the Pfizer studies, you mendacious shit?

                You do NOT compromise your placebo group in any sort of trial to be taken seriously. 'It seemed to work, so we just skipped ahead.'

                No. No, no and another hundred times no.

                And again - how many deaths and jab injuries are acceptable to fight something that has almost no chance of harming me?

                Fuck off, slaver.

    3. The Last American Hero   3 years ago

      I spent Sunday at the urgent care as my no comorbidity 12 year old daughter had a bad reaction to the booster. Wife insisted on the booster because she believes Lord pfauchi to be her one true savior. Odds Covid would have required an ER visit? Near zero. Fruit Sushi can fuck himself with his vaccines are safe bullshit.

      1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

        Please show your wife the data on women's issues with the jab and emphasize how little we know because of rushed safety testing. I hope your daughter is well.

        https://womenshealthresearch.ubc.ca/blog/menstrual-irregularities-and-covid-19-vaccine

      2. daveca   3 years ago

        The Official Line now is:

        " reactions are mostly Placebo"

        Odd.

        Placebo refers to the initial treatment ( pill), not the results.

        Odd how theyre so desperate to lie about it.

    4. Robby Soave   3 years ago

      That unherd article you cite is by Vinay Prasad, my go-to expert on all this stuff. I agree with him entirely. Here's what he has to say about Malone:

      "t other points in his interview, Malone alludes to many potential side effects of vaccination, claiming it can result in seizure and paralysis, and that the menstrual irregularities associated with the vaccine suggest it is a “major threat to reproductive health” for women. He suggests that vaccination can suppress T cells, raising the risk of unusual cancers.

      To date, I have seen no evidence to support any of these claims, and I believe it is a mistake to raise them. First, they are irresponsible — Malone’s rhetoric verges on fear-mongering — and second, they distract from his legitimate points on myocarditis in young men."

      And later:

      "These are entirely false and insulting allegations, and Malone’s in particular are flat-out conspiratorial. "

      1. CLM1227   3 years ago

        There’s evidence. There is no proof, because few are analyzing the evidence and those that are are being isolated and attacked personally.

        There’s several studies showing an uptick in the menstrual side effects of the vaccine (I think even the NYT brought it up).

      2. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

        The accusation of fear-mongering is interesting because Malone's speech and his claims are largely about how the whole pandemic has been an exercise in fear-mongering. That's really part of the problem-accusing specific individuals of having larger motives when they simply present their concerns. Alleging motives when you can just cite evidence.

        I don't think Malone's intent is to scare people away from the vaccine, it's to look at the countervailing evidence that is getting buried in the narrative. I can't speak firmly to his intent, but given that he's actually TAKEN the vaccine, I don't think he's explicitly telling people not to get vaccinated, but rather highlighting that there are false narratives being spoken about the vaccine. I think Malone is pissed that citing actual CDC information and actual studies gets you banned off platforms, or has you labeled as spreading misinformation. What's made it worse is that he's been labeled deceptive based on actual facts he's presented.

      3. JesseAz   3 years ago

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7897359/

        There's one case Robby, there are many links to these connections, but many grants have been cut off to actually study links to side effects and the vaccines.

        1. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

          Good reading.

          It's worth just admitting the evidence; prevalence among vaccine receivers is no higher than should be expected in the general population, though in at least one case, there's suspicious timing indicating a trigger.

          I've had a case of Bell's palsy before. It's tied to the herpes simplex virus, and I occasionally have flare-ups of cold sores as a result. One of the potential triggers for Bell's palsy is stress, along with any kind of respiratory illness. So it seems he had a reaction to the vaccine as well as respiratory symptoms, probably some stress, which could have triggered the condition.

      4. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Here is an FDA warning about the link.

        https://www.westernjournal.com/fda-warn-covid-vaccine-link-rare-nerve-disorder-can-cause-paralysis/

        So not sure how he can say "no evidence" with a straight face.

      5. JesseAz   3 years ago

        menstrual irregularities associated with the vaccine suggest it is a “major threat to reproductive health” for women.

        How is this not an issue? Women have a fixed number of eggs, any disruption tot hat can cause a threat to reproductive health. That is why the hassidic jews track these issues and the CDC just admitted to the link.

        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cdc-finally-listening-women-vaccines-201347636.html

        Robby, this was a bad defense of your position as it is clear you didn't actually do any digging behind Prasad's claims and merely trust him over Dr Malone because you had a priori trust in him.

      6. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Robby, Dr Malone and Dr McCullough cited dozens of studies on the Rogan podcast interviews. Did you take any time to look those studies up? Because you cited an interview with Prasad that cited no studies.

      7. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        "flat-out conspiratorial"

        I thought that you of all people would've known better by now about the "conspiracy theory" smear, Robby.

        Virtually everything we've been told was a conspiracy theory regarding Covid, has so far turned out to be true.

        Dr. Malone and his fellow professors who've been saying these things, are Oxford, Harvard and Stanford professors. They're at the pinnacle of their fields in virology and cardiology. They're not just some community college house MD.

        1. daveca   3 years ago

          but theyrenot Fauci Approved.

          Boris is immune bc of his wild hair.

      8. Overt   3 years ago

        "That unherd article you cite is by Vinay Prasad, my go-to expert on all this stuff'

        Interesting. But Mr Prasad *also* agrees that the problems with myocarditis are valid, and worth looking into. And on top of that, as I note above in another thread, the risks of myocarditis vs covid hospitalization are ignoring the fact that the majority of covid hospitalizations with kids are children with comorbidities.

        If you are a healthy kid, by my numbers you are more likely to end up in the hospital with a vaccine induced myocarditis than with COVID. But even if the risks are on par, or slightly favor the Vaccine, you are talking about pushing a shot on MILLIONS of kids (in many cases with school mandates) in order to prevent a vanishingly tiny number of hospitalizations and deaths. We are talking about vaccinating 1,000,000 children to prevent less than one death and less than 100 hospitalizations. It is absurd.

      9. daveca   3 years ago

        "by Vinay Prasad, my go-to expert on all this stuff. I agree with him entirely. Here's what he has to say about Malone:"

        . Thats inter- personal grouping games.

        Social claptrap.

        Thats not science.

        For science, we go to credible, published, peer reviewed scientific papers and must FIRST be qualified to read and understand them.

        " He said, She said" is not admissible.

        Your method agrees with listening to politically appointed Talking Heads that claim Masks work, when published research papers from both CDC and NIH say they dont.

        I have a ' go to expert'- a PHd in Genetics.

        I found out hes as 'full of crap as the proverbial Christmas turkey.'

        He's lock- step with the POLITICAL line on this topic.

        It was major ' deer in the headlights' look when I cited CDC AND NIH research proving masks dont work.

        His PHd response?

        "Ill wear them anyway."

        . Denial.

    5. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

      Robby is a useful idiot with delusions of being one of the Sophistocrats.

      That he is called a science reporter is another shameful mark against Reason.

  5. DaveM   3 years ago

    "We see no civil liberties problem with requiring COVID-19 vaccines in most circumstances," writes the ACLU. "In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties."

    All process arguments are insincere, including this one?

    1. Mickey Rat   3 years ago

      Yes, at least now, you have to assume that the ACLU's legal arguments are just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks to get a result, not a principled belief.

  6. Overt   3 years ago

    I am glad that Mr Soave has finally unambiguously made the case for medical freedom. It is unfortunate that he is only now coming to this conclusion once it is clear that the Vaccine only protects the individual from harm.

    Indeed, the time to argue for moral clarity was when people believed that the Vaccine *did* prevent the spread of the disease. Because while I agree that it is criminal to draft children and adults into medical procedures to protect themselves, it is equally morally outrageous to draft children and adults into medical procedures to protect others from a natural pathogen. We know it is wrong to conscript citizens and send them off to defend us from invaders, and it is immoral to conscript citizens and force them to fight off bears, fires and viruses.

    1. DesigNate   3 years ago

      But what if your baby sneezes in public?!/!!

      1. Vernon Depner   3 years ago

        Taser it.

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      once it is clear that the Vaccine only protects the individual from harm.

      That's not true. The n-16(x4) level of Antibody crossmojination is 17x less likely to cross stress another person in a <6' socially distanced metric. If you understood the scientism, then you'd know that one unvaccinated person in a population of 330,000,000 people under a 17n5 curve intermodal ratio proves that 100% vaccine compliance is the only way forward.

      1. Vernon Depner   3 years ago

        How does 5G figure into this?

        1. daveca   3 years ago

          It means all airliners will crash.

  7. Overt   3 years ago

    Regarding the ACLU's argument:
    ""We see no civil liberties problem with requiring COVID-19 vaccines in most circumstances," writes the ACLU. "In fact, far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties.""

    This is some of the most hand-waviest nonsense I've ever seen from the ACLU. Even *if* we were to accept that it isn't a violation of rights to force you to undergo a medical procedure in order to protect other people, civil rights abuses come from ENFORCING the mandate.

    Mandates may not in and of themselves be a massive civil rights violation, but the ENFORCEMENT is. To enforce the mandate, employers and businesses are conscripted into checking papers. Data is dragnetted into central databases that track our medical histories. People who do not follow the mandate are subject to losing their jobs, fines and jail.

    Just as with the war on drugs, what starts as a harmless "you shouldn't do this bad thing" becomes "the government has the right to raid your house, shoot your dog, conscript private employers, and invade your privacy to make sure you don't do this bad thing."

    ACLU's lawyers aren't stupid enough to not make that connection. They are willfully ignoring it because of politics.

    1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

      ACLU went full progshit about the time they started staffing with 90s graduates.

    2. daveca   3 years ago

      note theyre hiding behind " we see no.. "

      Thats liar talk.

      "They see no" does not mean there is no.

      Thats the Logical Fallacy of Proving a Negative.

  8. Heraclitus   3 years ago

    It's a simpleton argument to say vaccine mandates are wrong. More nuanced thinkers recognize that sometimes mandates are warranted and sometimes they are not. We need to delve into the details of the situation to make sense of it. Just as a military draft is neither bad or good in principle, but depends on the specific war we are talking about.

    Soave is just plain wrong as usual. This is not a purely private choice. While you can still spread the virus when vaccinated you sure as heck do not clog up the ICU beds. Your choice to risk hospitalization puts me at risk if I need an ICU bed from some unforeseen event. And while you can spread the virus you probably shed a smaller load for a shorter amount of time. And how about the fact that when you get sick for longer without the vaccine you slow down the economy and that acts as a burden on all of us. Imagine if teachers did not get vaccinated. There would be many more school closings.

    Is our ICU bed shortage bad enough to warrant a mandate? Does the smaller viral load of vaccinated people make a big enough difference? And what if only 30% of people chose to get vaccinated as opposed to 60%+? What if old people in nursing homes were refusing and dying? Would that make a difference to you?

    I believe the situation is in the sweet spot. The virus is bad enough to warrant many measures but weak enough that many people can make these anti-mandate arguments. But what if the virus were an order of magnitude scarier? What if everyone around you was unvaccinated and you came down with some co-morbidities? How would you feel about the anti vax freeloaders then? Context matters.

    1. mad.casual   3 years ago

      It's a simpleton argument to say vaccine mandates are wrong.

      Correct. Even most simpletons can see the idiocy of "Ideas so good they have to be mandated." but, apparently, a large portion of the population is hell bent on being more retarded than simpletons. It's a moral argument against people whom, it seems, would figuratively, if not literally, blow their own brains out rather than allow others to even seem better than themselves.

    2. Zeb   3 years ago

      If only 30% chose to get vaccinated, then a mandate would be politically untenable and any attempts would fail. It can only work if you can persuade enough people to go along. Mandates are never a good idea. If the virus were much more deadly, then more people would be willing to go along with the public health recommendations. There are good reasons why up until two years ago coercive measures for pandemic situations were not recommended by anyone.

    3. Sevo   3 years ago

      "It's a simpleton argument to say vaccine mandates are wrong."

      It's assholish to make this claim, asshole. Fuck off and die.

    4. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

      Fuck off, slaver.

      Your panic of Karens will be trounced come midterms.

      1. Sevo   3 years ago

        "...panic of Karens..."

        Wonderful!
        I'll take credit for 'a quarrel of starlings', dunno who gets 'a murder of crows', but 'a panic of karens' is right up there!

        1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

          Chumby shares some blame, as I recall.

      2. Emmett Dalton   3 years ago

        And rightly so, but the Democrats are committing suicide this cycle. So readily that the Republicans won't even need to promise (and then not deliver) on reducing the overreach of the feds.

        Though, a cursory review of the most recent few decades suggests that a (D) in the White House and the GOP in control of Congress = some of our slower rates of increase for Federal spending.

        FYI there never has been an actual "cut"; only a slowing of the growth rate.

        1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

          I'd believe that. Government exists to perpetuate itself.

    5. NJ2AZ   3 years ago

      "Just as a military draft is neither bad or good in principle"

      yeah you lost me here. the government and/or society doesn't own my life.

  9. mad.casual   3 years ago

    Malone is an accomplished man, but he's wrong to suggest that the COVID-19 vaccines don't work and cause serious harm.

    Let's not forget here, Robby, that Malone isn't just a bench scientist either. Multiple drugs and therapeutics through the FDA pipeline prior to 2019. So, even if you thought he was just some bench-level crackpot, there's still a very big element of stepping on your own dick by saying the FDA was too cautious before but now has it right especially in this case. If the previous definition of safe and effective was wrong, tossing it out the window for vaccines the government paid for up front and subsequently attempted to mandate is not the correct libertarian answer.

    The COVID vaccine doesn't work and causes serious harm relative to TDAP, Varicella Vaccine, or Tamiflu? Absolutely and without question. No scientific degree needed, regardless of Malone's scientific credentials and regardless of the FDA approval process.

  10. Michael Ejercito   3 years ago

    I am ld enough to remember the swine flu pandemic.

    http://www.aclu.org/press-releases/nyclu-urges-public-education-and-voluntary-vaccine-h1n1-flu-warns-vaccine-mandate

    The ACLU clearly sold out.

    1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      H1N1 was way less deadly than the AlphaOmegacron.

      1. Zeb   3 years ago

        ACLU is supposedly there to fight for civil liberties (which I no longer believe at all). There are plenty of other orgs out there that can worry about which virus is worth being scared of.

        1. damikesc   3 years ago

          Seems like they changed their name but not the acronym.

          Anti Civil Liberties Union seems to fit well.

      2. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

        And let's not forget what happened to the H1N1 vaccine.

        https://www.nytimes.com/1976/10/13/archives/swine-flu-prograrm-is-halted-in-9-states-as-3-die-after-shots.html

        Meanwhile, 22,000 dead later, Robby says it's safe and effective.

  11. IceTrey   3 years ago

    If you're a citizen of this country you have to have a mandated vaccine and carry a vax card and ID to prove it's yours but if you're an illegal immigrant you need none of that. That makes sense. NOT!

  12. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    You don't have to be anti-vaccine to oppose these ever-expanding requirements.

    You might want to consult Merriam-Webster before going off half-cocked like this.

  13. Vernon Depner   3 years ago

    "Isn't that something Democrats used to believe—or still pretend to believe?"

    No. Democrats are unabashed authoritarian collectivists. Try to keep up.

  14. awildseaking   3 years ago

    "You don't have to be anti-vaccine to oppose these ever-expanding requirements."

    That's the thing Robby. Look across the pond at Australia, Austria, Germany, NZ. Their elected officials explicitly state that opposing mandates is anti-vaccine. After all, if you believe they work and trust them enough to vaccinate yourself voluntarily, that means the only reason you wouldn't accept forcing them unto the unwilling is because deep down, you have some doubts about whether they really work or not.

    These people are demoralized, controlled puppets for global Marxists. They understand no language other than power. Keep that in mind. You're not going to debate your way past these people.

  15. Jerry B.   3 years ago

    "In D.C., if you want to enter a restaurant, you have to show not just your vaccine card, but also a photo ID—like a driver's license—in order to prove that the card is really yours."

    But if you want to vote, or register to vote, you don't need ID, because you might have to make some effort to get it.

    1. daveca   3 years ago

      thats a STUPID rule.

      So I get a card image on line, Use Paintbrush to edit in my name ( like Obamas fake Birth Certificate) so the names match.

      What goods showing a DL do?

      Besides, THAT VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW.

      Theres a USC that holds DL as sensitive information protected against disclosure.

      Whats in play here are assholes in corps playing Patriot Act games. they've invented a
      " know your customer" game, pretending that ID requirements for financial transactions intended to fight terrorist money laundering also apply to consumer transactions.

  16. Sopater   3 years ago

    "Moreover, the vaccines are not dangerous—they are certainly not more dangerous than the disease itself."

    That, my friend, may be different for different individuals. Each is to conduct their own "risk / benefit" analysis and come to their own conclusions regarding which is more dangerous, or safer, than the other based on all available information. The analysis would very likely come to different conclusions depending on whether you're a 78 year-old, morbidly obese man with a history of diabetes, or you're a healthy, strong, 19 year-old athlete who eats well and takes good care of yourself. Each person has different risk factors and varying degrees of benefit from either option. It is up to the individual to determine what is best for themself.

    1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

      ^ +1

      We should all be able to agree to that.

      1. daveca   3 years ago

        ..when CDC data, 1/5/21 showed a 5% figure for hospitalization, the only ' mass need' is on the part of the drug companies for profit.

    2. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

      Blasphemy!

  17. John U   3 years ago

    This statement that, "Your vaccination status is, by and large, your business. The vaccines are not substantially blocking the spread of COVID-19: It protects the person who gets it, and thus it's not really the government's business." is dangerously false.

    1. The vaccine is protecting most people and for the small percentage who get a breakthrough infection, vaccination reduces the severity of the illness and death.

    2. Not getting vaccinated impacts all of us, not just the person getting vaccinated. An unvaccinated person offers a virus the opportunity to infect others and mutate. The fewer unvaccinated people there are, the safer all of us are. In some areas the number of unvaccinated covid patients are crowding people with other serious illnesses out of hospitals. And the toll these unvaccinated narcissists are taking on health care workers is unconscionable.

    3. Getting a sufficiently large number of people vaccinated is definitely a public health issue and the government's business. Unvaccinated people have no higher moral ground than people who run red lights. Mandating vaccination is pretty much the same as mandating stopping at red lights.

    4. By increasing the risk of covid infection for all of us, and flooding our health care system, the unvaccinated are a financial burden on the rest of this. We are going to pay for their "freedom" in future taxes, increased insurance premiums, and inflation due to the unnecessary harm they are doing to the economy.

    1. Zeb   3 years ago

      And here's another person who hasn't updated his vaccine information for at least 6 months.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        And never will.

    2. Sevo   3 years ago

      And another slaver who is welcome to fuck off and die.

    3. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

      The jab does not, nor has it ever prevented infection and transmission. The ONLY thing it does is reduce symptoms. It is a therapeutic, not a vaccine.

      'Leaky' jabs that do not prevent infection are the primary drivers of mutations that evade vaccine-derived antibodies.

      The overwhelming majority of all Covid deaths - 94.5% - had multiple comorbidities that could have independently caused death. About 3/4 of these comorbidities had to do with obesity.

      Meanwhile, almost 22,000 deaths have been reported to VAERS and multiple nations are stopping vaccinations due to the huge numbers of heart issues being reported. The CDC has further recognized that the jabs cause irregularities to womens periods.

      Safe and effective, amirite?

    4. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

      Those talking points are like 6 months out of date. Look at recent data out of New York. Or Denmark. Or Israel. You're getting the virus no matter if you're jabbed or not. You're just as much of a chance to breed variants, but additionally you put evolutionary pressure on the virus to escape the vaccine.

      1. daveca   3 years ago

        ...have HAD the virus...

        Its had 3 years to gallop around the globe.

  18. Chumby   3 years ago

    Broad?

    I believe we now use the term birthing person

  19. Mister Green   3 years ago

    >>Broad Vaccine Mandates Are a Serious Violation of Civil Liberties

    Mandates Are a Serious Violation of Civil Liberties

    There, I fixed it. The Koch Brothers Libertarians think it's OK to have exceptions to bodily autonomy. No exceptions!

  20. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

    Again, how is public health supposed to work in Libertopia?

    So, in Libertopia, this novel new airborne virus appears. Many people get sick, and some people die. It causes a lot of concern. This is Libertopia so there are no lockdowns, no mandates, and also no welfare state. So while many people would like to stay home and to take preventive measures to keep themselves from getting sick, they have to work in order to put food on the table. So people continue to work, get sick, and some more die. The virus continues to replicate and mutate, around and around. If we accept Overt's understanding, then no one is really responsible for any of this. It is just an Act of Nature. So, viruses emerge, nothing can be realistically done about it, people go to work and die, tough luck, too bad, life is suffering, just deal with it. It seems very bleak and very anti-humanist. That is the vibe I'm getting from a lot of the comments here. If this is not how things are supposed to work in your version of Libertopia I would appreciate something that is less bleak.

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Jeff thinks forcing people to not live their life is liberty.

      1. Sevo   3 years ago

        "Jeff thinks..."

        No, he doesn't.

    2. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

      First we study it, earnestly seek treatment and prevention and ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease.

      And then we offer it to people if they want.

      Nowhere is there a need to mandate a shitty product for a problem I don't have.

    3. Yes Way, Ted   3 years ago

      There is no such thing as “public health”; that’s collectivist nonsense. There is only individual health.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Lying Jeffy is a collectivist, yes.

      2. daveca   3 years ago

        AND...dont forget the " protection " racket.

        Well ' protect you' ...said every Dictator, ever.

        Thats Mafioso...

        Joe Biden, putting the Dick in Dictator.

    4. Nobartium   3 years ago

      Are you your brothers keeper?

    5. NOYB2   3 years ago

      In Libertopia, property owners (including HOAs, and employers) decide whether to require vaccines, masks, or lockdowns on their properties.

      The difference is that property owners properly balance individual risks and economic costs, while people like Fauci, Biden, and Cuomo are driven by selfish political considerations.

  21. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

    "Moreover, the vaccines are not dangerous—they are certainly not more dangerous than the disease itself."

    Punch yourself in the nuts, Robby. You've earned it.

    https://newsrescue.com/more-harm-than-good-viral-canadian-covid-care-alliance-document-gives-disturbing-data-on-pfizer-vaccines-describes-level-1-harm-misrepresented-efficacy-video/

    1. chemjeff radical individualist   3 years ago

      Because "newsrescue.com" must be that new site hosting high-quality scientific studies, right?

      1. Emmett Dalton   3 years ago

        There is source information, literally, in the first sentence dipshit.

      2. R Mac   3 years ago

        Jeffy’s tried and true response. I call it the Rogan response.

        1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

          He bleats when you proffer summarized Pfizer studies too.

          But we know Jeffy thinks the source matters more than the content.

      3. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

        It has a terse summary and several links. Might be a bit above your reading level, as there's no Marxist twaddle and diapers.

  22. Hank Phillips   3 years ago

    Robbie the cowpox preppie is the soave and deboner source for things that are cruel and coercive... UNLIKE Ku-Klux Texas redneck vigilantes bounty hunting fertile women for Jesus, or brainwashed redneck Trumpanzees sending Hitlerjugend cops to their deaths in a shibboleth crusade criminalizing production and trade via totalitarian robbery and murder. Surely there are enough conservative and anarchist whack jobs already alienating voters, no?

    1. Salted Nuts   3 years ago

      Is this what happens when SQRSLY buggers Rev. Kirkland behind the BLM rally?

      1. daveca   3 years ago

        The Buggery may be in a Circular Fashion with their level of stupidity.

    2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   3 years ago

      Do you write this shit with a symphony playing loudly in the background, crescendo crashing down just as you finish typing a masterpiece of descriptive nonsense?

      Just seems performative to me.

  23. Sequel   3 years ago

    Health mandates have a long history in the Common Law, which is largely the province of States.

    Health mandates from the federal Executive Branch do not enjoy the same level of constitutional coverage with enumerated or unenumerated powers. While we await the Roberts Court's decision on Biden's vaccine-or-test mandate, there doesn't seem to be much support for any clear-cut rule or one-size-fits-all policy on the question of mandates.

    1. daveca   3 years ago

      POTUS is not law enforcement.

      BTW neither are anyone at the State level.

      NO Constitution in this Nation ever gave Elected Representatives enforcement authority.

      Health isnt the question. "Arbitrary," "capricious" and "one sided dictatorship" are the salient terms.

      Its called "The End Justifies the Means" and was the basis of Hitlers doing similar ( but larger scale) to ensure Public Health.

  24. NOYB2   3 years ago

    Robby, I hope people will revile you for the anti scientific anti vaxer that you so clearly are (to the left).

    Don’t expect conservatives or libertarians to come to your aid. As far as we are concerned, you deserve to be hoisted by your own petard.

  25. daveca   3 years ago

    Lie:

    " wrongly warning that it was dangerous or had resulted in widespread death."

    50 THOUSAND PLUS have been killed BY THE SAFE VACCINE.

    WTF is the threshhold for widespread?

    When its so many they can no longer hide it?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

How Making GLP-1s Available Over the Counter Can Unlock Their Full Potential

Jeffrey A. Singer | From the June 2025 issue

Bob Menendez Does Not Deserve a Pardon

Billy Binion | 5.30.2025 5:25 PM

12-Year-Old Tennessee Boy Arrested for Instagram Post Says He Was Trying To Warn Students of a School Shooting

Autumn Billings | 5.30.2025 5:12 PM

Texas Ten Commandments Bill Is the Latest Example of Forcing Religious Texts In Public Schools

Emma Camp | 5.30.2025 3:46 PM

DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending

Jacob Sullum | 5.30.2025 3:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!