Coronavirus news

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

 Death was the consequence for about 700,000 other Americans. You and your family (as well as my brother's family) were lucky.

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.

I've heard too many talk about "liberty" as if it means, "I don't (or shouldn't) have to suffer any consequences for refusing the vaccine." There are consequences. Besides possible sickness, hospitalization, and death; some without the vaccine will lose their jobs. Some may not be able to fly or attend concerts, etc.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.


I curtail my desire to drive 120 mph on the lonely, little travelled Interstate through our town. I wish I had the freedom to travel that stretch of road as quickly as possible (without risk of tickets); but I don't. The downside is that I would be more likely to crash and die; and I could cause others to crash and die, too. For my own safety and the safety of others I follow the speed limit mandates.

The issue is not just between having no restrictions or extremely restrictive draconian restrictions. The issue where to draw the line.


To take your example. The risks to yourself and others of driving 120 mph on your Interstate reasonably warrant imposing a lessor speed limit to reduce the risk that your driving on that road would pose to yourself and others. On the other hand, that stretch of road (and all others) would be greatly reduced if a 30 mph speed limit would be imposed. Accidents at 30 mph are less likely to result in crippling or deadly injuries than accidents at 45 mph, 55 mph, or 75 mph. So, in order to reduce the risks to the driver, passengers, and others on or near the road, should we impose a 30 mph speed limit?


It seems apparent that such a speed limit on all highways would be impractical and ill-advised. Such a speed limit or even lower is imposed on residential areas where there is little separation between traffic going in different directions, pedestrians, etc. Some roads are constructed to reduce the risk of higher speeds and given higher speed limits. Always there is a calculation of the risks of higher speeds versus cost in time and inconvenience of imposing lower speed limits. And the danger of some (many?) who would ignore what the public would consider excessively low speed limits. Even here in rural Michigan I am frequently passed by drivers who find my habitual 55 mph speed where that is the posted speed limit too slow.


Have business/school/church shutdowns and travel restrictions been effective and justified? That can be questioned without taking the position that no restrictions are ever warranted. The same for mask mandates and vaccination mandates. People can question whether the loss of liberty implied by mandates are warranted by the risks of not imposing them without being totally against mandates in all situations. Unfortunately, the science upon which we could reasonably base these decisions is not always clear, and is not always the predominate factor for those in favor of mandates or opposed.

We can't really test how effective such measures were. We can't go back and have a "do-over" without shutdowns and travel restrictions, and mask mandates and vaccination mandates. I am certain that the vaccinated have much greater odds of not catching the disease, not being hospitalized, and not dying than the unvaccinated. I believe that comparisons between the vaccinated and unvaccinated bear that out.

[Brian Stoffregen]

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.

Bunk! Peer review means that other scientist at other institutions, who do not have the same agenda-drive processes, do the same experiment and reach the same conclusions - or their experiment shows the errors in the original conclusions.

[Jim Butler]

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.

Bunk! Peer review means that other scientist at other institutions, who do not have the same agenda-drive processes, do the same experiment and reach the same conclusions - or their experiment shows the errors in the original conclusions.

Uh...no. Doing the same experiment and reaching the same conclusion is called replication. Peer review does not necessarily mean replication. Here is a nice explanation of peer review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/

[Chuck]

Bunk! Peer review means that other scientist at other institutions, who do not have the same agenda-drive processes, do the same experiment and reach the same conclusions - or their experiment shows the errors in the original conclusions.

No, Brian. You might spend 3 minutes on youtube learning what peer review means..Peer Review in 3 Minutes

The scandal of disreputable journals has been around for a long time.

[The Yak]

A: No it isn't. My wife and most of my kids got Covid, and it amounted to the sniffles, not death.

For me and my wife, it was much more significant, and we had no underlying health conditions nor were we particularly old (I'm pretty sure we're about the same age as you).  We seem to have fully recovered and were not hospitalized, but it was one of the worst experiences of a disease in my life, and I'm sure my wife would say the same thing.  A coworker of my wife's was in the hospital for a couple weeks gasping for breath.

We had tried to get the vaccine beforehand but were unable to do so.  Afterwards, we now are vaccinated plus enjoying the benefit of having natural immunity.  I'm pretty excited about that given the studies coming out regarding the strength of natural immunity from having recovered from the virus + receiving a vaccine.

In any case, I wouldn't wish the disease on my worst enemy. It's severity might not be death for everyone who gets it, but minimizing it helps no one and is, frankly, frustrating to read.

[Dan Fienen]

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?

How do I do it? Not easily, with trepidation and never forgetting that I and those I look to for guidance may be wrong. I marvel at your confidence in writing off those who disagree with you as simply wrong, possibly stupid, surely foolish, probably careless about the needs of those around you, and maybe evil. No sympathy for people like that. They deserve whatever measures the government whose wisdom they refuse to recognize decide to use to bring them into line. They are unworthy of consideration, their concerns mere foolishness.

[Dave Benke]

A: No it isn't. My wife and most of my kids got Covid, and it amounted to the sniffles, not death.

For me and my wife, it was much more significant, and we had no underlying health conditions nor were we particularly old (I'm pretty sure we're about the same age as you).  We seem to have fully recovered and were not hospitalized, but it was one of the worst experiences of a disease in my life, and I'm sure my wife would say the same thing.  A coworker of my wife's was in the hospital for a couple weeks gasping for breath.

We had tried to get the vaccine beforehand but were unable to do so.  Afterwards, we now are vaccinated plus enjoying the benefit of having natural immunity.  I'm pretty excited about that given the studies coming out regarding the strength of natural immunity from having recovered from the virus + receiving a vaccine.

In any case, I wouldn't wish the disease on my worst enemy. It's severity might not be death for everyone who gets it, but minimizing it helps no one and is, frankly, frustrating to read.

Thanks for sharing this.  What you are stating about your family is absolutely the case for so many in my pastoral care and also in my daily knowledge base in New York.  Minimizing the effects of COVID-19 is a strong disservice to our readership on this forum.

Dave Benke

[Charles Austin]

Having known a few  people (not all old) who nearly died and suffered greatly, I found the reference to COVID as “the sniffles” almost obscene, especially from one who mocks mitigation efforts. Then there are those 700,000+ who didn’t sniffle, but did die (and their grieving family members and friends, probably - what? - two to three million or more of our neighbors).

[Dan Fienen]

Having known a few  people (not all old) who nearly died and suffered greatly, I found the reference to COVID as “the sniffles” almost obscene, especially from one who mocks mitigation efforts. Then there are those 700,000+ who didn’t sniffle, but did die (and their grieving family members and friends, probably - what? - two to three million or more of our neighbors).

I'm going to have to go with Charles here. While many cases have been mild or even asymptomatic some are not. It has been compared to the flu, but even the seasonal la grippe results in serious illness, hospitalizations, and thousands of deaths each year. Not to be dismissed lightly. Covid has been even more contagious with a higher incidence of serious illness, lingering debilitation, and higher fatality rate. It has not hit the population like the plague did in the 14th century but it still has warranted serious attention and countermeasures.

[Charles Austin]

Had a long conversation with our director of nursing yesterday. I no longer have any sympathy for those who refuse the vaccines, nor do I apologize for calling them foolish. I would not hold their hand and say “it’s all right, dear, you do what you feel is best.”
I would say, “you’re being a damn fool; get the shot.”
More unnecessary suffering and death lie ahead, and the unvaccinated or those who minimize the threat are not helping.

[D. Engebretson]

Perhaps ministry has changed over the years, but calling some of my members and others I work with outside the church "damn fools", is not something I can do. While I got "the shot" - three of them to date to be exact (I recently received the booster) - I understand that some still harbor doubts about it, even people in the medical field. I do not share their doubts, but I understand how well-educated and informed people come to different conclusions.  This board is testimony to that on a daily basis.

[D. Engebretson]

The article linked below is from a local news provider.  Yes, such complications are quite rare, statistically speaking.  But the death was recorded and it came about as the side-effect of the J & J vaccine.  Stories like this, even if relatively rare, are behind at least some of the hesitancy out there.   

https://www.wsaw.com/2021/10/06/mother-2-dies-blood-clots-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine/?fbclid=IwAR2PgBCCmAhcV8NhawmNp551oirYqUNBkYJO7cVp1NE7zs0ObEN2cphq084

[David Garner]

Death was the consequence for about 700,000 other Americans. You and your family (as well as my brother's family) were lucky.

"Lucky" is an interesting way to put it.  There have been 44.1 million total COVID cases in the U.S.  Simple math, then, indicates that 98.4% of people who got COVID were "lucky," and approximately 99.8% of all Americans were "lucky."  Roughly twice as many people died from heart disease and nearly twice as many from cancer.  I guess we're all super lucky we haven't died of those too.

Maybe a little perspective?

[Jim Butler]

Having known a few  people (not all old) who nearly died and suffered greatly, I found the reference to COVID as “the sniffles” almost obscene, especially from one who mocks mitigation efforts. Then there are those 700,000+ who didn’t sniffle, but did die (and their grieving family members and friends, probably - what? - two to three million or more of our neighbors).

Are you saying that Peter's experience isn't valid? Are you saying he should not be allowed to speak his truth? Didn't VP Harris tell a young woman that she need to keep speaking "her truth" just a couple of weeks ago?

Speak your truth, Peter! Don't let the man keep you down!

Last year, Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital in Boston, in conjunction with Harvard Medical School, set up a site to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Chelsea, a suburb of Boston that was one of the hardest hit in the state. They were amazed at the high percentage of people who had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their bloodstream. In the follow up, a majority of the people had no idea that they had been sick with COVID-19. Many of them reported having nothing more than sniffles or a bad cold. I've got other friends who experienced the same thing and were surprised to discover they have SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in their blood. (I've often wondered if the really bad cold that I had in early 2020 was a case of COVID, but I don't want to spend the money to have the antibody test.)

Many have gotten very ill and thousands have died due to COVID. But those thousands do not mitigate the fact that others have a milder version. Both are true.