Now you can listen to this article on The PonkaBlog Podcast!
If somebody rounded up a room full of people with smallpox, I’d be willing to walk into the room and help them. Without wearing a mask.
I already know what some of you are thinking. You’re thinking that’s an easy thing for me to say because it’s impossible to find anyone with smallpox let alone a room full of them. That is correct.
Some of you are also thinking that because everyone got vaccinated against smallpox, we were able to eradicate it. That is also correct.
Some of you will then try to make the leap that if everyone got vaccinated against COVID-19 we could eradicate that too. That’s not correct.
The smallpox vaccine is a true vaccine. It confers immunity. A smallpox vaccination provides FULL immunity for 3 to 5 years. After that, the effectiveness drops down to about 97%. But, if you get another shot, you go right back to 100% immunity.
I received my smallpox vaccination more than 50 years ago, which means my immunity level is most likely down to 97%. So, just to be safe, I’d probably get another shot before I volunteered to walk into the room in our example. But I wouldn’t have to. Because as long as I receive the smallpox vaccine within a few days of exposure, I should be fine.
The COVID-19 vackseens do not, however, work that way. If everyone in the world could magically get vacksinated against COVID-19 all at the same time, the disease would still exist. Because the COVID-19 vackseens don’t confer immunity. Not even for a little while.
The COVID-19 vackseens don’t guarantee you won’t get COVID-19 and they don’t guarantee you won’t spread it to others. The “experts” will say that the vackseens provides “partial immunity”. That’s just Marketing speak for “not actually immune”.
According to the CDC, “The number of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections reported to CDC are an undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons, especially of asymptomatic or mild infections. National surveillance relies on passive and voluntary reporting, and data are not complete or representative.”
In short, no one really knows how many vacksinated people have ultimately contracted the disease and are spreading it to others.
Which brings me to my next point.
There’s something I can’t wrap my head around. We’re seeing more and more venues require either proof of vacksination, or a recent negative test if you’re unvacksinated. This doesn’t make any sense.
I understand what they’re trying to do, just not how they’re going about doing it. Even the “experts” agree that the vackseens are creating a lot of asymptomatic carriers of the disease. In other words, even if you’re vacksinated, you might be infected and you might be infecting others without knowing it.
In fact, a recent study in the UK found that there is no difference in the contagiousness of the vacksinated or the unvacksinated. Both are equally capable of spreading the disease.
So, why would venues only test the unvacksinated people? No one has ever said that vacksinated people can’t get sick and spread the disease. And no one knows how many of them are sick and spreading the disease. Assuming that someone isn’t contagious simply because they’ve been vacksinated is ridiculous.
Because people are people, regardless of vacksination status, some folks are going to attend a concert when they’re not feeling well. And some of those people, whether they’re vacksinated or not, will likely have COVID-19. And they can all be equally as likely to transmit the disease.
If the goal is to protect public health, then EVERYONE who attends a concert should be required to provide a recent negative test. I’ll go so far as to say that testing only the vacksinated people makes more sense than testing the unvacksinated people because those that have been jabbed are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers.
This applies to concert venues, workplaces or wherever else they’re using vacksination status to predict a person’s ability to spread COVID-19. If your goal is to reduce the spread of the disease, then you need to treat both vacksinated and unvacksinated people the same way. Because both can contract the disease, and both can be equally contagious. Furthermore, as the effectiveness of the vackseens against the new virus mutations continue to drop, it becomes even more likely that vacksinated people are spreading the disease.
Like I said, I understand what they’re trying to do. But what they’re trying to do isn’t to protect the public. If it were, they’d treat vacksinated and unvacksinated people exactly the same way. Because there’s no data to indicate they shouldn’t.
Requiring vacksination to attend an event is just another form of virtue signaling. Live Nation Entertainment, which manages nearly 300 concert venues, is leaving it up to the individual artists to decide if vacksinations are required to attend one of their shows.
Think about that for a minute. We have a disease that is so dangerous there’s a push to inject every single person on the planet, but Garth Brooks gets to decide if vackseens are required to listen to him sing.
Did you know I publish a new article several times a week? I’ve started getting noticed by Social Media. Which, as you know, for a Conservative is never a good thing. I highly recommend you sign up for my newsletter. That way you won’t miss anything the next time social media censors what I write.
