False safety

 Suspicions confirmed, what say you Dr. Bonnie?

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-pfizer-vaccine-more-harm-than-good/

Precautionary Principle Redux

I read the other day that the precursor to the precautionary principle was the simple maxim "look before you leap". But that is a world away from, if there's a risk don't jump, which is the precautionary principle today.

I wonder how many of today's youth have thought, I'd like to do this or that and then thought, oh, wait a minute I might get hurt or I might fail and disappeared back into Mum's basement. If the current crop of university students are the gauge I suspect it's more than a few. With a few notable exceptions they seem incapable of thinking for themselves or of standing up to the mob.

Most of them are wasting their time at school anyway, they amass significant debt and come out with a degree that will not get them a job at McDonalds and back to Mum's basement they go.

I would urge the youth coming out of high school today to abandon the precautionary principle, look at your options, do a cost/benefit analysis then leap into the known. Failure is not the end of the world as long as you learn from it. Failure is an excellent teacher if you listen.

I did decide to leap but I also took a good look. At seventeen I decided to join the Navy. To see whether that was a good decision I first joined the Naval Reserve. I found I liked it and was cut out for it so I applied for the Regular Force with the goal of retiring as a Chief Petty Officer. As it turned out, after all the testing etc. I was offered a commission, another look, another leap. That pretty much sums up my careers, precipice on the horizon, look, then leap, managed not to land in too much doodoo.

The maxim most people forget is, nothing ventured, nothing gained! Which is, of course the antidote to today's application of the precautionary principle.

Governments of course have stretched the precautionary principle to the breaking point, with the recent pandemic as a case on point. Few jurisdictions did a cost/benefit analysis but leapt upon the bandwagon of masks, mandates and lockdowns just in case a few people might die. Well a few people did die, but if the recent data from the BC CDC is any indicator, no more than would have died in any case.

However, the ancilliary costs were not considered or if they were they were studiously ignored. If the government had looked before it leapt and considered, first do no harm, we would quite likely be better off than we are.

The New Flu

 This gem appeared in my news feed from First Reading, https://link.postmedia.com/view/5ee259f3aeee084bdd327192fr4pz.7mi/e0327e83, 

"On Friday, B.C. made waves across the country by announcing that they’re effectively going to start treating COVID-19 like the flu. The province will stop contact tracing and is now asking healthy people to simply stay home for a few days if they get sick. “We cannot eliminate all risk, and I think that’s something we need to understand and accept,” said Provincial Health Officer Bonnie Henry. She added that B.C. would henceforth be treating COVID-19 “much more like how we manage influenza.”

If true, this is excellent news. However, it doesn't appear that they actually mean it. I checked the Public Health Officer's website and all the coercive orders remain in place, none have been rescinded. Vaccination coercion is still in full force, if you want to do anything you enjoy in the public sphere you'd better be "vaccinated" and be able to prove it and who you are.

There was never any government coercion to take the flu vaccines or to wear a mask. No division of the people into the virtuous, the "vaccinated" and the sinners, the unvaccinated. No daily hysteria in the media about the daily death toll from the flu or the number of people hospitalized.

If the government truly wants us to believe what they say then they had better start walking the walk instead of just talking the talk.

Secret Knowledge

 This interesting graph came to my attention this morning via The Conservative Woman (TCW) website https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/. 

There is very interesting data here, in almost all age groups the "vaccinated" are more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated. The reasons for this discrepancy are not clear, what is missing is clarifying data such as vaccination rates (VR)  and the hospitalization rates (HR) in the various age groups.

Lets look at the under 18's. In this group the infection rate amongst the unvaccinated (UV) is almost double that of the "vaccinated" (V) crowd That has to do, I would submit, to the VR in that age group. That group is mainly UV because of fears of adverse effects amongst the young. That raises the questions as to why so many V children are becoming infected. It is of little import however as the HR and death rate (DR) is so low in that cohort.

As we move up the scale of age where the VR is greater we can see that more of the V are becoming infected than UV. Is the reason for that that there are substantially more V than UV? We don't know because the data is not presented. 

What is also not presented is the HR for each cohort, who is more likely to end up in hospital. Again without that data making sense of this information is difficult.

When comparing this data set to that presented by CDC BC the situation is turned on its head. The CDC BC data is exactly opposite to that presented above. The reason, again, is not clear. Part of the problem is that the CDC data is presented on different scales in two graphs placed alongside each other which makes if difficult to make accurate comparisons. What is clear is that there is no statistical significance in the the difference in the DR between the two groups. That being the case then there should not be any statistical significance in the the difference in the recovery rate (RR) between the two groups. However, that data is not presented.

The really interesting question is why the difference between the UK and BC. Perhaps when this madness is behind us someone will undertake to answer that question.

Off with their heads

My news feed this morning contained this little gem.

“For at least one quarter of the country, Quebec’s plan to tax the unvaccinated doesn’t go nearly far enough. A recent opinion poll found that 37 per cent of respondents think they should be denied health-care, while 27 per cent were fine with them going to jail.”

It appears that a considerable number of my fellow Canadians are fascist nutters. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that all of these folks vote Liberal and are easily swayed by MSM BS.

For reasons that escape me many folks believe that their life is in imminent danger from the unvaccinated. They fail to notice that the “vaccinated” really aren’t, they can catch the disease and they can infect others. The only thing that the “vaccine” does is treat the symptoms, it provides no protection whatsoever from the disease.

So much for Canadians being nice, gullible perhaps but not nice, “Throw the buggers in jail!”

 

Precautionary Principle vs First, Do No Harm

“Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction, Nobel Laureate

The precautionary principle is simple, if there might be a risk involved don't do whatever it is you are proposing to do or if you perceive a possible risk mitigate against that risk real or not. That's a poor way to live life. It is however, the way the government, that is, government scientists, government officials and the government itself, approached the risks of the Covid pandemic and health professionals and officials have let them, if not cheered them on. And then they abandoned the principle when the "vaccines" came on the scene.

What then of the Hippocratic Oath? The precept, "first do no harm" is not found in that oath. What the original oath does say is, "With regard to healing the sick, I will devise and order for them the best diet, according to my judgment and means; and I will take care that they suffer no hurt or damage.". It goes on, "Nor shall any man's entreaty prevail upon me to administer poison to anyone; neither will I counsel any man to do so." Those two sentences encompass "first do no harm".

The precautionary principle and the precept are not mutually exclusive nor are they the same. Instead they complement each other when properly applied.The problem with the principle is that it has one dimension, is there or might there be, a risk in doing what ever it is you propose to do. It fails to take into account the effect of not doing something. That is where the precept comes into play. Will either course of action or non-action actually cause harm versus a possible risk of harm.

When COVID first emerged in Canada little was known about it and the early precautions seemed reasonable and prudent. However as time went on and knowledge increased the restrictions appeared to me at least and to others. ill directed and scattershot. COVID presents a known risk, primarily to the elderly. The risk to young people is low and to children virtually nil. Yet the government proceeded as though everyone was at risk and to same degree. No risk assessment was undertaken or if it was the results were not communicated to the public. It was clear that the harm produced by the ongoing restrictions was greater than that from the disease itself. The government doubled down, violating the law of holes, when you're in one stop digging.

The first precautions applied the precautionary principle but the later actions of the government violated the precept, it was clear that harm was being done.

Lets talk about the "vaccines", the principle and the precept.

The government has taken the view that the "vaccines" are safe and effective, so sayeth the CDC, and everyone should be "vaccinated". This in the face of clear evidence that the vaccines are a risk for some age groups, studies in Israel and the UK show high risk to young males and children, and advice directly from the manufacturer of at least one of the "vaccines" that they should not be administered to children. Further, the efficacy of the "vaccines" wane significantly in the matter of a few weeks whereas real vaccines, such as smallpox and polio provide protection and immunity that the COVID "vaccines" do not. So much for do no harm

Again no risk assessment has been done and applying the precautionary principle the government is proceeding as though we are all open to the same degree of risk. The evidence from the Swedish experience and the government's own data show that that is not the case. The vast majority of deaths in BC are in the over 70's, the vast majority of cases are in the over 20, under 50's. If the BC government had applied the Swedish approach, protect the elderly and vulnerable and let the rest get on with their lives then the economy would not be in a shambles and great harm could have been averted.

Even worse, the government is treating Omicron the same as all the other variants. The data does not support that assessment. Cases are up significantly, active cases are also up but deaths are way down and the case fatality rate is the lowest it's ever been. But we knew that this would be the case from the outset because the South African authorities told us so, more transmissible but less severe. Yes, there are more hospitalizations but the rate of hospitalization is declining.

The BC government is quick to apply the precautionary principle but ignores the precept. As a result many small businesses and young workers have been irrevocably harmed, children are being harmed by the constant wearing of masks in school and other places and thousands may be disabled through  unnecessary and harmful "vaccination".

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." – CS Lewis

 

The Idiocracy

 

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." – CS Lewis

In my opening salvo I opined that coercion was afoot but that no government hopeful of re-election would attempt to beat up those hesitant about vaccination by restricting their access to things like grocery stores and liquor stores. Silly me.

The Quebec government has recently announced such restrictions and in addition is considering a tax or fee upon the unvaccinated, quelle stupidite. Reports in the MSM have it that the government has complete support from the vaccinated majority. Since the vaccinated aren't really vaccinated, that is, immune to the disease Covid, then I suppose the madness of crowds prevails.

M. Legault, the Premier of the province should hope that the crowd doesn't suddenly drop their madness otherwise the electoral guillotine could be rolling up.

Luckily, our government here in BC has indicated that they are not proceeding down that slippery slope. The federal government lead by our Prime Minstrel, M. Trudeau, has been silent on the issue but I would not put it past him. Lunatic ideas are his speciality. Are we suddenly to begin taxing alcoholics when they are hospitalized with liver disease? Are we to abandon the great Canadian conceit of free medical care?

On another note, the public health folks in this province seem incapable of understanding their own statistics. The case fatality rate has been dropping like a stone for the past few weeks, ever since the Omicron variant appeared on the scene. The hospitalization rate, hospitalizations to cases, has also been dropping. The daily average recovery rate has been increasing. Yet all around in the public health forum all is gloom and doom.

The average daily death rate is increasing microscopically but in the usual age groups. The 70+ age group represents 6% of the cases, 35% of the hospitalizations, but79% of the deaths. In the 90+ age group 8 more people have died than have been hospitalized, causing me to believe that this group is going quietly into that dark night as they always have, in their own bed, asleep.

The federal public health folks seem incapable of recognizing idiocy when it smacks them in the face. Any person returning to Canada by air must be fully vaccinated and have a negative PCR test almost immediately prior to boarding. All those folks on that aircraft are vaccinated and have tested negative for Covid but when they get off the aeroplane here in Canada they must have a further PCR test. Did this sneaky virus somehow breach the aircraft at 30,000 feet and infect all the inhabitants or was the aircraft itself already infected and passed it on to the passengers during the flight. The idiocracy at work.

 

Return fire

 I was astounded to learn this morning that for the past two years Health Canada has been tracking me via my cell phone. I should pay more attention. That public health officials would violate my privacy in this way is beyond the pale.

 To confirm this piece of news I went to the Health Canada website. It says that "Health Canada is responsible for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health.", how does tracking my cell phone help maintain and improve my health?

 I also went to the Public Health Agency (PHA) website, silence on the issue. That website sets out that the PHA has a  "focus on preventing disease and injuries, responding to public health threats, promoting good physical and mental health, and providing information to support informed decision making.". No mention of a focus on tracking Canadians or why they should track Canadians.

Why are they undertaking this tracking. I cannot find out. There is no mention of the practice on the Health Canada or PHA websites and a search of the federal website only takes you to the notification app which we all knew about and which the BC government declined, rightly, to participate in and which does not track information or a persons whereabouts. 

In an article I saw this morning the newspaper reported that the Commons Ethics Committee was undertaking and emergency meeting to investigate the  the practice of collecting data from mobile phones to " understand the travel patterns during the COVID pandemic.". How that prevents disease is not made clear and a politician noted that the application to extend the programme, which was the precipitating incident for the emergency meeting, was made just before Parliament paused for the holiday break and appeared to him to be a process more opaque than transparent.

The opening salvo

 Astute readers will notice that in the title of this blog "conservative" is not capitalized, There is a reason for that, I don't belong to or subscribe to any particular political party, if anything I lean toward the libertarian mind space. I do have an active,

and the events of the last two years have bent the pin on the right of the meter.

 

The thing that pushed me to start writing this blog is this, I live in British Columbia, although not as bad as some venues the BC government has been pushing restrictions and vaccinations hard. I have been following the data and I concluded that it did not support their narrative. Then the BC CDC posted this,

This a chart of death from all causes in BC, including Covid, for an eleven year period from 2009 to the end of 2021. There are three things of note here, first, the deaths from all causes in 2009 and 2017 exceeded those for 2021, second, the deaths in 2021 are exactly on the median and third, there was a pandemic in 2009.

What can we draw from these three things? 

First and foremost, 2021 was not out the ordinary in terms of deaths. I noticed early on that the median age of death from Covid was higher than the median age of death from all causes by two years, that has since reduced, probably because all those old folks, of which I am one,  have already died. The fact that the deaths are on the median leads me to believe that not much out of the ordinary occurred in 2021.

The second conclusion is that the restrictions imposed by the public health people were a panic reaction because they did not impose them in 2009 during the H1N1 pandemic during which time more people died than in 2021. That pandemic primarily struck young people as opposed to the current disease which is deadlier to the older generations. Nobody ran around in masks or was locked down in their home or locked out of their work.

My final conclusion is that the current Covid "vaccine" works just like the flu vaccine, that is, not very well. 

Until 02 Dec 21 the US CDC defined a vaccine as a product that stimulated a persons immune system to produce an immunity to a specific disease. Clearly that does not define the current "vaccines". A "vaccinated" person can get Covid and thus does not have immunity to that disease, further, that person can infect others. In essence, the "vaccine" protects no one. Which means it doesn't even meet the CDC's current definition of a vaccine, which is, a preparation that is used to stimulate the bodies immune response against disease. No mention of immunity against a specific disease.

You will notice that no one speaks of immunization with respect to this "vaccine". Immunization is a process by which a person becomes protected against a disease through vaccination.

So what is the practical value of the "vaccine" and why do we restrict people's access to various venues on the basis of their "vaccinated" status?

The public health folks will tell you that it reduces the symptoms and thus reduces the burden on the health system, why then are hospitalizations going up? Data from the UK and Israel indicate that the "vaccinated" are just as if not more likely to be hospitalized as the non-vaccinated. Yes the non-vaccinated compose more of the current infections, the cases. but do they compose more of the hospitalizations? That data is available from the BC CDC if you dig deep enough. Interestingly in the 70+ age group only vaccinated people are being hospitalized, in other age groups the ratio is almost equal to almost double non-vaccinated over "vaccinated" depending upon the age group.

Conclusion, it's not a vaccine, we are being lied to, it is a treatment and not a very good one. Which leads to - why are they restricting access?

The evidence is that both "vaccinated" and non-vaccinated can contract the disease and both can transmit it. So what is the benefit of excluding the non-vaccinated from certain venues?

The restricted venues are those people want to go to, bars, pubs restaurants etc. The unrestricted venues are those that would raise a ruckus if someone needed a "vaccine" passport to enter, grocery stores, liquor stores and similar venues. It is clear that the purpose of the restrictions is coercion, to get people to get "vaccinated". The unrestricted venues are ones that would cause political backlash if people were excluded. It is clear to me that these restrictions are a political decision not a public health one. That the politicians would misuse public health and trust is despicable, that public health officials would allow it is unconscionable.

Why are they attempting to coerce the public into getting "vaccinated". I don't know and I'm not a conspiracy theorist so I'm not speculating as to cause. However, as far as I can see there is no benefit to getting vaccinated if you're not elderly or vulnerable and again we're being lied to for some reason. I leave that to you to determine.