In this interview with Freddie Sayers, Lord Sumption, former UK Supreme Court Justice, makes two major points.
First, that enforced lockdown unjustifiably undermines the conventions that have made Britain a free society. Therefore, he urges people to adhere to the tradition of freedom and defy lockdown laws.
Second, he argues that making the possession of a vaccine passport necessary to dining at a restaurant, travelling by bus, rail or air, or entering the supermarket is a reasonable requirement of the state.
On the first point, Sumption is correct, although his encouragement of civil disobedience is not the courageous suggestion one might think, since young people in large numbers have displayed a contempt for lockdowns from the outset.
On the second point Sumption is dead wrong. To make a vaccine passport a necessity for participation in normal social and business life amounts to making vaccination mandatory. That is, he is arguing for laws to make it compulsory to accept an experimental vaccine which has not been thoroughly tested for effectiveness, even, let alone potential harms.
That is an extraordinarily totalitarian position to take, especially when it is realized that the novel RNA so-called vaccines are known to have limited effectiveness, but potentially disastrous negative effects.
Concerning potential negative consequences, it should be noted that:
1. Inoculation with RNA “vaccines” induce production of antibodies to the Covid-19 spike protein, which is a short-lived response that will provide immunity to illness from Covid infection for perhaps as little as only three to six months — meaning that repeated RNA inoculation will be necessary to maintain effectiveness.
2. Unlike vaccines previously developed, RNA “vaccines” do not activate immune responses, e.g., a T-cell response, that prevent Covid infection. That is why Anthony Fauci has acknowledged that Covid RNA “vaccines”, while preventing disease manifestation, may not prevent disease transmission. That means that the RNA “vaccines” may make one an asymptomatic, but infectious, carrier of the virus.
3. Because the RNA “vaccines” have not undergone long-term testing, it is unknown what long-term adverse effects they may have. Potential adverse long term effects are, however, far from inconceivable: Antibody-Dependent-Enhancement (of viral infectivity and disease severity) anyone? Or maybe you'd care to risk a touch of prion disease, the thing you get from eating mad cows or the brains of kuru-afflicted humans.
These risks may be low, but a small risk of a world-wide health catastrophe amounts to a serious matter. So no, Lord Sumption, you can stuff your vaccine passport.
Related:
The Bezos Post: Anti-vaccine extremism is akin to domestic terrorism
 | When the Star-Belly Sneetches had frankfurter roasts Or picnics or parties or marshmallow toasts, They never invited the Plain-Belly Sneetches. They left them out cold, in the dark of the beaches. They kept them away. Never let them come near. And that’s how they treated them year after year. |
5 ways they’re trying to trick you into taking the Covid “vaccine”
I haven't read the whole interview, but I have read and seen legal debates elsewhere about whether a liberal government (one that claims to respect freedom for individuals) can do mandatory vaccinations.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really contentious question, and while there is a way intellectually to be opposed to lock-downs of businesses but in favor of mandatory vaccinations, in the framework of being concerned about individual liberties, is just a really weird combination of positions to take.
Since a certain amount of regulation of business and private property is practically unavoidable, you would normally allow for governments to restrict business operations before you get to allowing them to force people to get experimental stuff injected directly into their bloodstreams.
Robert Barnes also had a good framework to approach this, in that we are dealing with claimed emergency powers to begin with. The two weeks thing last year was a propaganda point, because that is how long at the most genuine emergencies last (no, I don't consider wars to be emergencies). They are not supposed to be permanent things or last a year. That is all you really need to be able to reject this stuff.
Yes, things are being dragged out for some unacknowledged reason.
ReplyDeleteMy guess is it's to provide a justification for debauching the currency.
Forty percent of all US dollars ever created were created since January 1, 2020. The same kind of money printing for emergency measures has occurred across the Western world.
Once that money works its way through the economy the purchasing power of the dollar will be greatly reduced. Wages, however, will not rise commensurately. Hence, the deliberately prolonged "crisis" or "emergency" has served to, in the words of Prince Charles, "set us on a new and more sustainable path." Meaning, obviously, less consumption and a lower standard of living.
A lower standard of living for you, that is, not for Charlie-boy, who recently took a four-engined government jet on a trip to meet Greta Thunberg at Davos.
As for mandatory vaccination, its not as though it can be justified as a protection for others. The fact that I've not been vaccinated and may be shedding viral particles that could infect someone else is no reason for compulsion. If others don't want to catch my cold, they can get the vaccine themselves, then they'll be safe --- well unless there are unforeseen adverse consequences of being jabbed.
ReplyDelete"As for mandatory vaccination, its not as though it can be justified as a protection for others. The fact that I've not been vaccinated and may be shedding viral particles that could infect someone else is no reason for compulsion. If others don't want to catch my cold, they can get the vaccine themselves, then they'll be safe --- well unless there are unforeseen adverse consequences of being jabbed."
DeleteThis is an interesting comment. One of the problems I've had with doing the rational thing with the masks--not wearing one--is they have been justified along the lines, "your mask protects me and my mask protects you." In those terms, it appears not wearing a mask is selfish and endangers others.
The sentence below the first-- yes, I agree entirely. Yet I am not sure I have ever seen anyone else notice this. The anti-vaxxer people (I mean anti-vaxxers prior to the pandemic and Covid vaccine) were risking their own health, not the health of people who had been vaccinated, but were constantly shamed for risking everyone's health. That'll be done here and now, too, though as far as I can tell, the reasoning behind it is fallacious.
My point is made redundant by the latest from the CDC.
DeleteNot only are adverse long-term effects, if any (e.g., induction of prion disease, perhaps), unknown for lack of long-term testing, but the CDC acknowledges, they have no idea if the vaccinated can still be infected with covid and if infected whether or not they can pass the virus to others.
Thus, the full rigmarole of masks and social distancing must be maintained almost unchanged even after full vaccination, which makes one wonder what really is the point.
For example, to quote the CDC directly:
For now, if you’ve been fully vaccinated:
You should still take steps to protect yourself and others in many situations, like wearing a mask, staying at least 6 feet apart from others, and avoiding crowds and poorly ventilated spaces. Take these precautions whenever you are:
In public
Gathering with unvaccinated people from more than one other household
Visiting with an unvaccinated person who is at increased risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19 or who lives with a person at increased risk
You should still avoid medium or large-sized gatherings.
You should still delay domestic and international travel. If you do travel, you’ll still need to follow CDC requirements and recommendations.
You should still watch out for symptoms of COVID-19, especially if you’ve been around someone who is sick. If you have symptoms of COVID-19, you should get tested and stay home and away from others.
You will still need to follow guidance at your workplace.
So, yes, why bother.
Actually, in China, they didn't bother much. They just ordered folks back to work and lied about the consequences.
A Bloomberg report weirdly date December 2021, yes 21, states that over 4% of the population of Wuhan, almost half a million people, is seropositive for covid-19.
But what seems for sure is that Western governments are far from finished messing with your life in the name of covid whether you're vaccinated or not.
Its hard to get a good read on the vaccination part of this operations.
DeleteOne thing I find striking is that no attempt has been made to keep information about people dying from the vaccine from the public, or that as you point out that the vaccine doesn't seem to have any positive effects, or that it has not gone through the normal approval process. Another point is that the weird experimental stuff is being used in developed western countries. Other countries are using vaccines are using vaccines more similar to the normal flu shots.
This is somewhat similar to the underlying COVID hoax. Even one year ago when I looked into it, it was not difficult to find out the statistics you point out in your next post, that the mortality rate was low and it was really only something for people at an advanced age to worry about. Its also not difficult to find information indicating that mask wearing has no point in terms of controlling disease, though there may be some benefit in publically signalling your willingness to submit to the authorities. But nearly everyone, at least in the blue part of the USA where i live, went along with it.
My guess is that the role of the vaccine campaign is to make it easy to identify who the potential dissidents were, since they will be the ones who will refuse to take the vaccine. To make sure potential dissidents don't take the vaccine, information about both potential side effects and that the vaccine accomplishes nothing positive is widely publicized, to make sure that only the most compliant types take it. If I am correct, these are probably not some secret depopulation or mind control agents (though you can't be sure, so I will avoid taking them myself). Also, they will never be compelled, but used to systematically exclude dissents from society. Making them a requirement to get food doesn't work with this model, so I that that proposal will be dropped, but they will ban the unvaxxed from ticketed travel, white collar jobs, getting bank loans, public events, and higher education.
Another interesting note is that this is being tested on Israel first. Much of my information on how this is being rolled out comes from following events there.
My guess is that if the pandemic was deliberately loosed on the world to achieve a societal transformation, the primary objectives would have been economic.
DeleteSpecifically, to "set ourselves on a new and more sustainable course," in the words of Prince Charles, i.e., the aim is to reduce your standard of living, thereby lowering global demand for energy and resources, while easing the supply for the private-flying elite.
However, any such regime change is bound to generate resistance and so taking note of the anti-vaxxers would seem like a good way to create a registry of toublemakers, people to be watched and if necessary controlled.
As far as I can determine, the RNA "vaccines" do what they are claimed to do, i.e., induce production of anti-Covid antibodies (which, according to the US Center for Disease Control, probably won't stop you getting infected and may not prevent you from spreading the disease).
The vaccine-induced increase in antibody production, seems likely to be short-lived, in which case, the question is: do you want to be jabbed once or twice a year for as long as Covid and its variants remain in circulation (which will probably be for ever)?
If you do, then Bill Gates will be pleased, as it will add to the profits of his foundation's massive investment in the "vaccine" makers.
I suspect, I will take a jab if the inconvenience of not doing becomes tiresome. For the time being, however, I am happy to take a minor risk* of premature death from Covid while evaluating such information about the jab as becomes available.
In fact, I'm pretty certain I've already had Covid: headache, fever, congestion, highly infectious -- went around the household in days. But here in British Columbia, we had no Covid testing facilities early in '20.
Our so-called Center for Disease Control issued an invitation for volunteers for testing, to which I responded. But the no testing was undertaken, as an email from the CDC notified me many months later.