Thursday, 13 June 2024

"Increased opposition to vaccines is a partial measure of how high a percentage this is."


"I’m going to have to write something in the near future about the big paradox of the pandemic years, which is that we produced a vaccine in record time that saved many millions of lives—the biggest demonstration in decades of the value of vaccines. Yet the result is that anti-vaccine sentiment has increased.
    "I think it’s a combination of three things. First, we are more culturally primed for anti-technology sentiment than we were when the polio vaccine was introduced in the 1950s. Second, thanks to vaccines, we are more culturally removed from the point at which infectious disease was a leading cause of death and a threat that continually loomed over human life, so we no longer appreciate what vaccines have saved us from. Third, a long period between major pandemics meant that nobody had to think about vaccines. They accepted them as a matter of course. But the pandemic suddenly required people to form an opinion about a new vaccine, and when people are required to think, a certain percentage of them will quite frankly be bad at it. Increased opposition to vaccines is a partial measure of how high a percentage this is.
    "At any rate, misplaced skepticism about vaccines has centred especially around the new technology of mRNA vaccines. But again, the paradox is that this targets a new technology that works. Specifically, mRNA vaccines offer tremendous speed and flexibility in creating new vaccines that shows enormous promise for treating things that could never be treated before.
    "In this case, it’s a vaccine for brain cancer...."
~ Robert Tracinski, from his post 'A Roundup of Good News: The Paradox of mRNA'

7 comments:

MarkT said...

It's not obvious from the title alone, but it's referring to a correlation between skepticism in the vaccine and those who are bad at thinking. That seems correct. An obvious example I saw recently was someone (who sometimes comments here) sent me an article about a single death from myocarditis traced back to the vaccine, presumably believing this single tragic death justified their general scepticism and negated the millions of lives saved.

If a policeman or fireman racing to an incident accidentally ran over someone and killed them I doubt they'd argue we should defund the police or disestablish the fire service, or we should avoid cars because someone died in a car crash - but the illogic is exactly the same to me, if not worse. My hypotheses to explain this is that anything on the microscopic level that can't be seen or touched relies on a broader understanding of the world and connection to reality, and if you don't have this to begin with you'll get led down a rabbit hole of flawed conclusions.

Paranormal said...

You have to be completely devoid of critical thought if you think the covid mRNA vaccine was safe and effective or that it “saved millions of lives”.
Firstly the figures show covid just wasn’t that deadly.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/daily-covid-cases-deaths-7-day-ra?time=2020-01-01..latest

The vaccine proved to be neither safe nor effective. If it was effective people wouldn’t have caught it or passed it on. As an aside - isn’t it funny how the multi jabbed keep getting really bad cases. I’d suggest long covid in many cases is actually long vax - but I digress.

TPTB even wrote to themselves outlining just how dangerous the vax is:
https://x.com/CranmerWrites/status/1615054387424161792

The evidence is there and growing.

Peter Cresswell said...

@Paranormal: A logarithmic scale reveals the tragedy more clearly: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-deaths-and-cases-covid-19

Paranormal said...

Sorry PC it doesn’t. We all know the death count was anyone who died ‘with’ Covid and not ‘from’ Covid. We saw that when the gang member shot in his driveway was included in New Zealand’s stats. The more telling point is that the daily death rate didn’t fluctuate following the daily infection rate.
Just look at the percentages as well. This was not a pandemic- even with the over reported deaths.
Also if you look at who was impacted the most it was the elderly.
In reality this was a normal flu - taking out the elderly and infirm.

Rex said...

“But the pandemic suddenly required people to form an opinion about a new vaccine, and when people are required to think, a certain percentage of them will quite frankly be bad at it. Increased opposition to vaccines is a partial measure of how high a percentage this is.”

Yes. Always have liked this chap. I think Ayn Rand would have said the same.

Nigel Sim said...

Here is the article MarkT was referring to.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/report-highlights-failures-in-informing-consumers-of-risk-following-covid-vaccine-death/F32GOFNBVJAA5MAXCJ2B62VZAM/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2Ly_4FoxDXbaiqh6hPqJ2oz_Xucd95bi2fnpT8alP_X3kQHngtfOp5Ycw_aem_AT4nsPE88EzYBbENviWolyN5X5Z-8qNaPntfTXjGwMvcofx6MJo1bVn7ypqG-1AyrQZrgtM5G2ISuWP_XpS8FOUv#
I thought he might have grasped the significance of the headline. This is not solely about Rory Nairn's tragic death. Sue Johnson's findings show that it's quite apparent that hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders (at the very least) who took the Pfizer jab, did so without being given proper informed consent.
How many formerly healthy people are now dead or injured because of this?

Anonymous said...

That Tracinski calls it a vaccine shows he is worthless and hopeless.