REALITY BITES

SIT BACK

RELAX

UNPLUG

Search
  • Monica Harris

The Science Is Clear - The Case Against Mandating Vaccines: A High-Level Executive's POV

Updated: Sep 6



NOTE: Given the pace at which events are unfolding, I thought it might be helpful to create this space to bring newsworthy items to everyone's attention on a regular basis. While the pandemic and government efforts to control it are significantly affecting our lives -- and recently I have chosen to focus on those efforts in my writing -- economic and geopolitical issues are also emerging that I haven't had time to blog about. In fact, by winter I suspect that economic issues will race to the forefront.


I think it's important for us to be aware of what's transpiring around us at all levels now, and going forward I hope this page will be a useful means to that end. If you have newsworthy topics you'd like to share with the group, please message me (or post in the comments). We all benefit when we share information!


The excerpt below is from an August 31 post on sott.net, purportedly reflecting an email exchange between a highly-placed executive and a colleague on the subject of employer mandates. Disclaimer: I don't know if the email is authentic, but I think the analysis is extremely important -- not just because it synthesizes a lot of key data, but because it puts the data into a practical, real world context for the purpose of assessing the need for employer-mandated vaccination.


This "executive" is asking the same questions many of us are asking and coming to the same conclusions. He/she also recognizes how disconnected their perspective is from their peers, which is something I can definitely relate to. Having worked as an executive at major media companies for most of my career, I know what it's like to feel "out of step" with the rampant groupthink in these organizations. I know the courage it takes to think differently. What you are about to read gives me hope that more people are awakening, at all levels and from all walks of life, and that eventually humanity will come to its senses.


In the words of Charles MacKay:"Men, it has been well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."


Keep the faith.


...


Email to the executive:


Hey [REDACTED] - are you giving any thoughts to getting vaccinated with all this Delta variant stuff going on? We've been having management committee discussions here about mandatory vaccinations to be able to come in to the office. We have office support people coming in most days that are not vaccinated and some of those with kids don't want to come in when they are in the office or invite clients into the office for meetings. Just curious as to how you are approaching it. Thx, [REDACTED]


The executive's reply:


From: [REDACTED]

Date: Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 9:56 PM

Subject: MY POV on Mandating Employee Vaccinations

To: [REDACTED]


I appreciate you reaching out. What follows is admittedly lengthy (though I do provide my "summary POV" a couple paragraphs down before I dive into supporting detail). I tried to be succinct, but practically speaking your question for me was akin to "hey, so what's your take on management?" The analogy here being I'm passionate about both subjects so it was hard to choose between sending back a brief 2-minute POV, or filling this email with enough content fit for a university level course. I didn't know what you had an appetite for, so I just simply did my best to try and be helpful (and heck, even had some fun while I was at it...).


My framework for this entire POV: in the famous words of W. Edwards Deming, "In God we trust. All others must bring data." As I hope you've come to know me by now, I care more deeply about facts & morals than I do ideology or identity politics (for the latter I just don't give a shit). If you give me a good reason to do something, I am 100% all over it. But if you give me either faulty reasoning or an unethical ultimatum, I simply cannot get on board out of a moral obligation to do what's right.


So to answer your questions with that sole framework in mind, here's my summary POV:


(#1) I still have no plans to get vaccinated anytime in the foreseeable future (unless something radically changes the risk equation), given:


(a) The virus at present poses de minimis risk for me personally (and virtually zero risk to any healthy child (a reference to your initial inquiry)); and


(b) Because these vaccines carry --> confirmed low/moderate short term -- inferred moderate medium term -- and expected high long-term health risk for what could be [though yet unknown] a majority of individuals who get the jab


(#2) I remain vehemently opposed to vaccine mandates for this specific virus (primarily on the basis of (i) 1b above, (ii) the medical literature, which strongly suggests that these vaccines will prolong this pandemic indefinitely through never-ending variants, and thus/therefore (iii) on moral grounds, as, if (i) and (ii) are true, then any decision to proceed with mandates would be nothing short of a descent by the West towards fascism**, the likes of which hasn't reared its ugly head since the early 20th century. Finally, at a distant, distant second, I am against these mandates from a logistical perspective*.


*E.g., how will you account for boosters (i.e., will those who were vaccinated too far in the past e.g., January and thus have substantially waning transmission protection also be excluded from the office)? What about those who got a different jab (e.g., AstraZeneca, Sputnik, CoronaVac, etc.), each of which has varying levels of effectiveness (and varying levels of effectiveness reduction over time) against different variants? How will you handle those that already had COVID-19 (and therefore (a) have even higher immunity than the vaccinated, and (b) who face higher health risks if they get vaccinated post- natural infection)? What will you do with the immunocompromised (folks with organ transplants, lung problems or cancer patients) who got the vaccine but have low viable antibodies because they require evermore booster shots? What will you do when future variants require different jabs? I could go on, but I trust you get the point. My real question for you is, will you be responsible for coordinating monthly/quarterly management meetings to update & maintain these ever-changing mandate policies covering ever-growing future use cases?


**And if you think I'm exaggerating, look no further than NY State Assembly Bill A416, which proposes forcibly putting carriers of COVID-19 who do not conform to the state's medical guidelines into something akin to internment camps, where they will be forced into a treatment deemed appropriate by the state and detained indefinitely until they comply. Imagine a U.S. legislative policy so bad, that even Russia Today was able to shit all over it as being far too draconian. And it's not just the state of NY, but the CDC as well.


===================


Last comments before I dive into supporting details


To not lose sight of being pragmatic as it pertains to your inquiry, I want to point out that at this juncture even a discussion about vaccine mandates is mostly moot.


We already know (confirmed) that those who are vaccinated/infected carry as much viral load as the unvaccinated. Which, coupled with waning transmission prevention efficacy means for all practical intents & purposes those vaccinated and those unvaccinated pose similar risks to one another.


And this is notwithstanding even more cutting edge research (not even yet published i.e. currently pre-print in The Lancet), which suggests those vaccinated carry significantly (upwards of 200x) more viral load than the unvaccinated (which would, if peer-reviewed, flip the risk equation on its head even further in that those vaccinated would pose far greater risk to one another than those unvaccinated). (And it is worth noting that this development would be consistent with what has been found with other vaccines -- in this 2017 study, for example, it was assessed that those who were vaccinated for influenza shed 6.3x as much virus as those who are unvaccinated. Crazy stuff.)


All of this is to say, despite the nationwide pushes you're seeing for private & federal workplace vaccination mandates (which may have made at least some sense much earlier on), such mandates are unfortunately no longer effective models at this stage, unsupported by what we now understand via the latest science. Instead, if you really want to make a difference in improving workplace safety at this juncture, I would suggest implementing either the 1st, or both, of the following policies:


(1) Everyone at the company must perform a daily (pre-commute) self-assessment health survey, whereby all individuals must confirm they are not exhibiting any of the known symptoms of COVID-19 (i.e., if you can't smell, have fever/chills, shortness of breath, etc., you can't come in to the office, period), without any pressure from management to respond they are symptom-free.


(2) (Optional) everyone, irrespective of vaccination status, must get tested weekly for COVID-19, such testing to be reimbursed by the company. If you test positive, you aren't allowed to come in until you test negative.


You asked how we're handling it, and I can tell you that we're doing the first one at [my company], and I would recommend utilizing the second one for any in-person company events. That's it. No mandates. Anything beyond that will lead you into a logistical nightmare (at best), foster a false sense of security as it isn't effective (worse), and in my humble opinion, is purely unethical (worst of all, which I'd like to think is a decent enough reason not to do something) at this stage.


So anyways, all of the above is the summary of my current POV. What follows below is/are the supporting details for the conclusions I reached in my summary POV 1(a), 1(b), and 2(i) above, if you're interested in the data.


Always happy to chat/update further as the saga continues ✌


best, [REDACTED]


P.S. if you're going to skip Parts 1 & 2 below*, then no worries... I get it, I probably wrote far more than you were looking for. But if indeed you do skip them, try to make it to the 'Closing Thoughts' section way down below -- I've sourced a nifty chart down there that might give your colleagues pause in their ongoing discussions about mandates before they consider the unvaccinated to be idiots for whom behavioral mandates are the only appropriate solution.


*Though I highly recommend Part 1 (where it says "TWO OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER" (then scroll to find #2)) as this contains a suggestion for how to naturally protect yourself from COVID-19.


...


Most folks here in the Northeast stop listening to me once I say "hey, there's something not right here in this data" or "I'm not too worried about COVID-19 personally". They think I'm a nut. Now, if you've made it this far and checked out most of the content, then I already know you're starting to wonder if you're losing your mind, because boy do I have a club pass with your name on it, if you'd like one.


Alas, contrary to popular belief it's far from a nut club, despite how strong the external pressure is these days to try to make it out to be the case. Rather, It's a club filled with precisely the very people who we're supposed to be listening to as a society."


You can read the remainder of the executive's email at sott.net.


I'm always interested in knowing if my content resonates with readers. If you enjoyed this article, please click the "love" button. Comments are also appreciated!

We're in a race against time to awaken minds.


If my work resonates with you, please pass it along to others and invite them to join our community. Sign up here to get my latest posts as soon as they're available!

183 views24 comments

Recent Posts

See All