Coronavirus news

[peter_speckhard]

Being con on mandates and vaccine passports is not the same thing as being con on vaccines. It takes into account the downside of mandates— loss of liberty— and deals sympathetically rather than contemptuously with those who for reasons of their own do not want to get vaccinated. After all, "Give me liberty or give me death" is mainstream enough to be the state motto of New Hampshire. Death is not the very worst fate. Tyranny is worse. That's why people are willing to die to defeat tyrannical regimes. And since every ruler tends toward tyrant, it is best to nip the gradual transformation in the bud. Allowing some people to die by Covid by their own anti-vaccine choice is tragic, but better than empowering the government to force them to get vaccinated against their will.

Well, the choice is between liberty and death. The downside of letting people be unvaccinated, unmasked, crowded together is sickness, hospitalization, and death. What's worse about the downside is that the unvaccinated, unmasked, and crowding together folks can cause others to get sick, be hospitalized, and die.

A: No it isn't. My wife and most of my kids got Covid, and it amounted to the sniffles, not death. They also all got vaccinated afterward, at least those who were old enough. We weren't particularly concerned about getting Covid, not being of the age or having any of the comorbidities that almost entirely determine the real health risk. And we weren't particularly bothered about getting the vaccine, not having any particular distrust of or problem with doing so. It is a choice between a slightly reduced risk of death and slightly (depending on your views) impinged liberty. So the real issue is in risk tolerance and mandate tolerance.

B: If it were a clear cut choice of loss of liberty or loss of life, only a coward would choose the latter. If I can die in way that ensures others remain free, that is preferable to living at the expense of their freedom. Of course, real life situations are rarely if ever so clear cut, but the principle is key-- liberty is at least as important as life, at least in the political sphere. Otherwise there could not even in the abstract be a cause worth dying for. In the theological sphere, neither the loss of liberty nor the loss of life is any impediment to God.

C: Since for most people the risk of Covid is very small even if they get it, and for most people getting the vaccine is no big deal, the real debate is about those who are at extreme risk (say, due to advanced age or a severely compromised immune system) and those who have a genuine moral or psychological aversion to getting this vaccine, be it do to lack of trust in the government, a belief that the vaccine befouls the sacred vessel of their body, or whatever. Encouraging people to get vaccinated and helping them overcome their objections honors both groups of people. Mandating that everyone get vaccinated completely disdains the latter group. It is like drafting pacifists to serve in the infantry because the nation needs defending. 

[peter_speckhard]

https://freebeacon.com/coronavirus/caught-on-video-rashida-tlaib-admits-she-only-wears-mask-for-cameras/

Saying the quiet part out loud.

[Charles Austin]

When we had a draft, Peter, we did draft pacifists. Most of them served in uniform. Some were allowed to do civilian service.

[Dan Fienen]

When we had a draft, Peter, we did draft pacifists. Most of them served in uniform. Some were allowed to do civilian service.

During the Vietnam War, Charles, did you agree with the draft to provide the troops necessary for that conflict, did you protest against it, sympathize with draft resisters who resisted the draft that those elected to manage our government deemed necessary for our nation? Can you sympathize with vaccine resisters? How do you determine which governmental mandates are meet, right, and salutary and should be acquiesced to without protest, and those to be resisted and protested? 

[JEdwards]

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-barrington-declaration-one-year-on/

This is a very interesting history of the p.r. and propaganda battles that have plagued discussion of the topic and led to it being seen in partisan terms.

There are some good points in this article, but it is worth noting that the citation provided to support a key thesis (natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity) links to a study that was published on a preprint server a few months ago, has been widely criticized (see the online comments at the link to the study), and has not, to my knowledge, been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.  I think a bit more humility about what we do and don't know for sure is in order for all sides in this debate.
Peace,
Jon

[J. Thomas Shelley]

"Vaccination among minority communities improving, but 'we still have some work to do': Gov. Wolf"

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/10/vaccination-among-black-brown-communities-improving-but-we-still-have-some-work-to-do-gov-wolf.html

In Pennsylvania it is NOT the MAGA hat wearing, gun carrying, outdoorsmen rural folk who are the vaccine resistant.

[peter_speckhard]

When we had a draft, Peter, we did draft pacifists. Most of them served in uniform. Some were allowed to do civilian service.

I believe I said it was like drafting pacifists to serve in the infantry, not simply to wear a uniform or do civilian service. Either way, your response is non-responsive. Whether or not we actually did that with the draft, my point is that the vaccine mandates are like doing that with the draft. The whole point is whether it is, was, or would have been a good thing to do.

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.aier.org/article/the-great-barrington-declaration-one-year-on/

This is a very interesting history of the p.r. and propaganda battles that have plagued discussion of the topic and led to it being seen in partisan terms.

There are some good points in this article, but it is worth noting that the citation provided to support a key thesis (natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity) links to a study that was published on a preprint server a few months ago, has been widely criticized (see the online comments at the link to the study), and has not, to my knowledge, been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.  I think a bit more humility about what we do and don't know for sure is in order for all sides in this debate.
Peace,
Jon

But the history the article deals with casts doubt on the value of "reputable" and peer-review, because the whole thing is about how agenda-driven such processes can be. Both safeguards, the reputation of journals and the peer-review process, are subject to enormous pressures that have nothing to do with the scientific validity of a paper's claims.

[Michael Slusser]

"Vaccination among minority communities improving, but 'we still have some work to do': Gov. Wolf"

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/10/vaccination-among-black-brown-communities-improving-but-we-still-have-some-work-to-do-gov-wolf.html

In Pennsylvania it is NOT the MAGA hat wearing, gun carrying, outdoorsmen rural folk who are the vaccine resistant.

To be honest, you should point out that the article doesn't say anything about "MAGA hat wearing, gun carrying, outdoorsmen rural folk." Are they getting vaccinated? Do the figures on that even exist?

Peace,
Michael

[MaddogLutheran]

...but it is worth noting that the citation provided to support a key thesis (natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity) links to a study that was published on a preprint server a few months ago, has been widely criticized (see the online comments at the link to the study), and has not, to my knowledge, been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal...

I'll reiterate the point I made a while ago that it is essentially scientific malpractice, given the amount of time that has passed, that certain key information (typical/probably transmission methods, mask effectiveness in the general population, and natural immunity) have not been better studied, or if they have, the information widely and correctly disseminated.

Where this hasn't happened, my initial presumption, unfair as it may be, is that the results, or likely results, do not align/advance the public policy preferences of that scientific community.  Recently I noticed Nate Silver (of 538.com presidential prognostication fame and a data/analystic expert) wonder on Twitter how any vaccine effectivity studies can be valid without disaggregating the natural immunity of those in the study.  One possible implication is that the variation in vaccine effectiveness is attributable to just that:  natural/infection immunity might raise the floor of the immune system.  Oh well, anyone who wonders about such things must just be a MAGA insurrectionist.   

[JEdwards]

...but it is worth noting that the citation provided to support a key thesis (natural immunity is better than vaccine-induced immunity) links to a study that was published on a preprint server a few months ago, has been widely criticized (see the online comments at the link to the study), and has not, to my knowledge, been peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal...

I'll reiterate the point I made a while ago that it is essentially scientific malpractice, given the amount of time that has passed, that certain key information (typical/probably transmission methods, mask effectiveness in the general population, and natural immunity) have not been better studied, or if they have, the information widely and correctly disseminated.

Where this hasn't happened, my initial presumption, unfair as it may be, is that the results, or likely results, do not align/advance the public policy preferences of that scientific community.  Recently I noticed Nate Silver (of 538.com presidential prognostication fame and a data/analystic expert) wonder on Twitter how any vaccine effectivity studies can be valid without disaggregating the natural immunity of those in the study.  One possible implication is that the variation in vaccine effectiveness is attributable to just that:  natural/infection immunity might raise the floor of the immune system.  Oh well, anyone who wonders about such things must just be a MAGA insurrectionist.   

In the initial randomized trials, patients had antibody testing at the time of study entry, and patients who had evidence of prior infection (regardless of the group to which they were randomized) were excluded from the primary analysis (as they should have been).  In subsequent observational studies, it gets a little trickier, since all of the relevant data may not be available.  However, the findings of most retrospective observational studies are by and large consistent with what was seen in the randomized trials, where rigorous controls were in place.
Peace,
Jon

[peter_speckhard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-19-coronavirus-lab-leak-virology-origins-pandemic-11633462827?mod=djemalertNEWS

[Dan Fienen]

Let's not forget the evidence that will be most conclusive for some. The Lab Leak Theory has been favored by Republicans in general and most especially has been favored by Donald Trump. For many that is proof conclusive, no further investigation really needed, that the Lab Leak Theory cannot be true. If Trump said it, it must be dismissed.

[Charles Austin]

Pastor Fienen asks:
During the Vietnam War, Charles, did you agree with the draft to provide the troops necessary for that conflict, did you protest against it, sympathize with draft resisters who resisted the draft that those elected to manage our government deemed necessary for our nation?
I answer:
I did not protest the draft. I sympathized with those who, though not true pacifists, felt they could not in good conscience participate in that war.

Pastor Fienen asks:
Can you sympathize with vaccine resisters?
I answer:
Thus far, no.

Pastor Fienen asks:
How do you determine which governmental mandates are meet, right, and salutary and should be acquiesced to without protest, and those to be resisted and protested?
I answer:
It ain't easy. How do you do it?

[RogerMartim]

Pastor Speckhard, I am getting a sense from you that COVID-19 isn't all that big of a deal. So, over 700,000 dead doesn't make you pause and think that COVID-19 is some serious *@#(!  And not all those 700,000 deaths were those who had comorbidities.