Val is a life-long practically oriented student of effective emotional and attitudinal responses to the many challenges of life.
Let us start with story of this much promising vaccine for COVID-19, by applying some hypothetically ideal numbers in our calculation of a true change after its global use. With about 8 billion of us scared-shitless humans on this planet, suppose that all 8 billion get vaccinated.
Now, if the vaccine is some 98% effective -- which might be an overrating -- and even if all 8 billion of us got infected with COVID-19, that would result with 98% of us still kicking, some of us completely asymptomatic, some sick and recovered -- while 2% of those unfortunate ones would die.
My question: How are these numbers different from the vaccine-less scenario so far?
Let's play some more with this crazy math. We know for certain that the PCR-test is not 100% accurate; and we also know that some far more inferior tests are being used. Could anyone tell me, why, if their randomity quotient is as good as the one of Russian roulette?
For example, my son got tested and the nurse told him how the test was only 30% accurate. Why bother testing?
Now, what if, as some doctors have been theorizing (and so much about this virus is still a theory), the PCR-test is sensitive to something that most of the population have in their bodies. Let's remind ourselves that we are composed of more microbes than there are body cells in us.
So, would it be too much of a stretch to assume that something, maybe even not recognizable among all that junk under the electronic microscope, may turn out the PCR test positive. Meaning that both, COVID-19 and/or that microbe-x with a similar, not necessarily identical, genetic material, are getting detected by the PCR test.
Which would statistically mean that practically all of 8 billion people are bound to test positive. Also, as dr. Michael Yeaden, a former CSO at Pfizer company is asserting, we may carry that genetic material long after we have developed immunity to it, without getting sick or making anyone else sick, but it will be diagnosed by PCR test as a "case". By the way, it is the same scientist who said, along with his colleagues, that the pandemic is practically over, having weakened down already back in June of 2020.
Also, according to the good doctor, it is statistically impossible that a "second wave" of COVID-19 could hit us.
Now, it's beyond my logical reasoning to understand -- why any medical expert would risk their reputation, if not also their livelihood, by publicly stating something for which they didn't have reasonable evidence.
On the other hand, so called whistleblowers don't only exist in political arena, so the fact that a single person dared to go against the grain doesn't make that person necessarily wrong.
It appears that a certain dr. Ferguson of the Health World Organization suggested this "draconian model" of preventative measures (masks, social distances, and lockdowns), and in Dr. Yeaden's words, "no serious scientist agrees with that model".
But, for reasons which conspiracy theorists might say something about, governments all over the world are taking dr. Ferguson's model seriously and enforcing it vigorously.
Do we really have to be of a conspiracy theorist's mentality to ask ourselves why these strict measures have never before been implemented when mankind was facing a serious pandemic.
Then we come back to that first point above -- which brings us to the question of the real need to vaccinate all 8 billion of us. While at that thinking, why not remember another statistic fact, that in the US alone some 350,000 people die yearly of various medical screwups -- whether misdiagnoses or wrong treatments. Actually, it's been called the number one single cause of death in the US.
Try to remember how much fuss has been done over the COVID-19 fatalities, as the number was climbing to the present 400,000 -- while no public mention has ever been done about the number of medical screwups rising.
And with these 400,000 dead so far from COVID-19, how many of those medical mistakes have been written off as "COVID-19 fatalities?
Finally, folks, let's face this simple fact of life -- people die of old age and of a variety of health complications, and here we might as well ask another question.
If those otherwise asymptomatic and biologically immune to COVID-19 die of something unrelated to the virus -- are they to be diagnosed as COVID-19 victims, just because at the time of death they tested positive?
Can we really go wrong by assuming that in that yearly huge number of deaths from all kinds of diseases, most of those infected by the virus might be asymptomatic, and never would have died of COVID-19 if it hadn't been for that other condition that killed them.
In 2017 some 57 million people died globally in that single year -- which is a more or less "normal" global mortality. There was no COVID-19 in that year.
Besides, if there is that microbe-x to which PCR test might be sensitive, and which is present in the most of the people -- why go panicky over fearmongering by daily reports of new, and new "cases"?
Backfiring Preventive Measures
Then, of course, we can't leave out of the fatality equation that enormous decline in global mental health.
Without my suggesting anything here -- YOU be the judge of a possible upcoming outbreak of nutsiness worldwide.
Just yesterday I saw a you tube video of the massive demonstrations against imposed lockdowns in Spain, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Thousands of people walked to the streets, some with banners reading :"We Have Enough!". (See the video below).
How long before it spreads globally?
After all, with all protective measures being implemented for many months, one would expect the numbers of "cases" to go down, but the opposite seems to be true. Could we ascribe it to the exponentially increased stress over the months, with all those imposed measures actually backfiring?
Then I heard about a CEO and his wife taking a private plane to some remote Yukon town where they planned to quickly get their vaccine shot. Apparently, while trying to present themselves as locals, they got promptly refused, in that community where almost everybody knows everybody else.
The incident went public, and the highly paid CEO lost his job over it -- plus didn't get his quick vaccine.
Think about it -- if an educated dude could go so panicky over the prospects of attracting the virus, as to risk his livelihood -- how are those common folks prone to anxiety coping with this crisis.
As I like calling them -- these "Fallen Guardian Angels of Public Health" seem to be miserably failing at considering how prolonged stress kills, while they keep bombarding the public with their daily reports of the fatalities from the virus, with social isolation, masks, financial uncertainties, and lockdowns.
The irony of it could be seen as catastrophic, while on one hand we are frantically waiting for the mercy of the authorities to stick that needle in our arm, on the other hand we are dangerously lowering our immunity, but also compromising our mental health.
It's not only about weakening our immunity to the virus, but all those who are already genetically predisposed to heart disease, diabetes-2, cancer, or any other deadly crap, are also increasing the risks of making those genes active.
Even with my very limited knowledge of immunology, I can't understand how those authorities are pushing for prevention of an infection while otherwise ruining people's physical and mental health, even their life expectancy.
Really, folks, are we bound to collectively go nuts while fighting to stay within those 98% of population -- which would have stayed well regardless of any vaccine?
How I know? Well, again, 98% of us have survived for a full year without a vaccine, right?
How long before it spreads globally?
© 2021 Val Karas