OK, covid's not the flu. But it's not yellow fever, either

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

'Stop comparing covid-19 to the flu. It's much worse than that.' 

So goes the retort from those who view the coronavirus pandemic as a significant threat to much of humanity, responding to those who say it has been over-hyped and disingenuously documented as the chief cause of death in many cases.

To have a covid-19 shot or not, this is the question.

The truth is out there

Depending on which side one lies — that's one's position in this context, not, um, "untruths" — evidence and experts can be sourced to "prove" one's argument.

Basically, if one believes that covid is very serious indeed, then opposing views are dismissed as mere conspiracy theories. 

It doesn't matter if the experts quoted by those crazy conspiracists had previously been respected professionals. That they are now against the mainstream — or at least those dictating policy — means they're pursuing a particular agenda or they're simply wrong.

Conversely, should one think that this pandemic has been blown out of all proportion, then those on the other side are seen as naïve, completely consumed by the irrational fear and panic being promulgated.

The natural position for a journalist or analyst should be scepticism. Just because something comes with the official seal of a government or international body (read the World Health Organisation here), it doesn't automatically mean that it is unquestionable. 

Prepare yourselves for this, but such authorities don't always get things right or tell the truth, whether that's done innocently, ignorantly, insidiously or otherwise.

Alas, as much as one might like to follow the X-Files mantra of 'trust no one', in today's highly interconnected, interdependent world, we can't independently check and verify everything every time.

On a very minor level, I trust the staff at the panaderías I frequent to prepare my perico (coffee with milk) and bake los panes de chicharróna hygienically. When travelling on an aeroplane — remember those days? — we place confidence in the engineers et al. who built the craft and the pilots flying it to get us to our destination safely.

'It's understandable and should be acceptable that some people don't want a covid vaccine. Yet what we're seeing is a global plan to ensure such folk are discriminated against.'

With that in mind, during this pandemic where we have a number of competing narratives doing the rounds and a lack of consensus in the scientific community, about the best one can do is observe one's immediate environment and act accordingly.

  
Personally, I was in close contact with two people who a day or two later got quite sick from covid-19, one older than me, one younger. They weren't hospitalised but it did hit them badly enough. 

That's two people I know who got ill. There's a good chance I've been in contact with others who also came down with the infection of which I'm not aware.

Considering the supposedly highly infectious nature of covid, I've either been quite lucky and just haven't taken in enough of a viral load or I have some sort of immunity already.

A vexed vaccine

This then makes me question why I should be forced to take a vaccine against something that, it seems, doesn't affect me that much.

OK, you might say there's no compulsion to take the vaccine. In theory, yes. But one looks set to be at a distinct disadvantage in many walks of life without having proof of covid inoculation, international travel being the obvious one. Effectively, without being vaccinated I am currently banned from visiting my family in Ireland.

To this end, it irked me enormously to hear the UK Conservative MP, former Secretary of State for International Trade, Dr Liam Fox, whilst calling for restrictions to be eased, argue that those who don't get the vaccine shouldn't expect the same access to travel and other public events as those with the jab.

Speaking on Spectator TV, he said, 'People who don't get their immunisation can't expect, for example, to have the same international travel as people who do get it. That's always been the case. If, for example, you decide you didn't want to get a yellow fever jab you couldn't go to certain countries in Africa. So the principle is no different than before.'

However, Dr Fox, it actually is rather different. Or at least should be viewed differently if people were thinking straight.

Unlike yellow fever, we know that covid-19 is quite a discriminatory infection. Many of us have little to fear from it and some of us, as mentioned above, may already have naturally acquired immunity. Also, yellow fever's death rate is substantially higher than that of covid-19.

Thus, it's understandable and should be acceptable that some people don't want a covid vaccine. Yet, what we're seeing is a global plan to ensure such folk are discriminated against.

Throughout the pandemic we have seen how rather than unite to tackle a common problem, humanity has been deeply divided, be it in relation to lockdowns, mask-wearing or, now, the vaccine.

With such entrenched positions, the covid wars are set to last for some time to come.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

The case against covid vaccine passports

@wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

In a recent episode of the UK-based Spectator TV, Adam Ritchie, Senior Project Manager in vaccine development at Oxford University's Jenner Institute, was asked how ethical it was for the UK and other high-income countries to be giving covid-19 vaccines to those less vulnerable to severe infection while at-risk groups in places such as India faced a long wait for a potentially life-saving jab.

Will the covid-19 jab be added to the International Certificate of Vaccinations booklet?

A jab for life

Considering the Jenner Institute works primarily on diseases that predominantly affect low- to middle-income countries Ritchie responded by saying, unsurprisingly, that he did, in a personal capacity, have some reservations about this.

On a similar theme, earlier this year I wrote about my indifference to be vaccinated, largely based on the assumption that I am in the low-risk category for covid. Subsequent events — being in close and enclosed company of people who, it transpired, had the virus at the time we were together — have made me feel, perhaps wrongly, that I may even be in a lower-than-low-risk bracket. (I am available for medical trials, if the price is right.)

When I published that vaccine article, one big unknown was whether or not inoculation helped reduce transmission.

Ironically enough, on the very day I uploaded the blog piece, preliminary studies were released that suggested the jab does indeed slow the rate of infection. This now seems to be largely accepted. (Do note, however, UK infection rates fell dramatically in the summer of 2020 which suggests that there are many factors at play in terms of contagion.)

This positive vaccine performance being so, the case against getting one is weakened somewhat. Somewhat that is.

There are still not-insignificant reasons why I and many others with similar profiles shouldn't be in a rush to get a vaccine.

For starters, we have that moral issue mentioned above. Is it right that somebody who appears immune and/or already has self-produced defences to covid is given a jab before a highly vulnerable person receives his/her shot?

(Now I know many of you would love for Wrong Way to live forever, but covid is far from the biggest threat to my and many others' existence right now. You must protect me from graver concerns if you want me to stick around for a long time to come.)

'If it is considered immoral for some people to get jabbed right now and even for a few years to come, then how can proof of vaccination in order to travel or whatever be seen as fair?'

Alongside this, owing to the nature of coronavirus, even those already vaccinated in high-risk groups will most likely need a booster dose before my first "turn" comes up — I refer to my turn as stipulated by Colombia's five-stage vaccine rollout programme.

For example, my 77-year-old father received his vaccine in March. To stay sufficiently protected, it's most likely he'll need at least one more jab inside the next year.

Immune to clear thinking

Globally speaking, we're far from having enough doses for all. Thus, for now, the focus should be on getting what we do have to those in greater need, wherever they may be.

Then there's the potential immunity issue. Do I and others like me even need a vaccine for something that doesn't appear to present any real risk to us? We've already seen during this pandemic the many problems that arise when treating the population as a homogeneous unit (do recall those worst-case-scenario models that saw much of the world scramble for the panic button and abandon all proper reasoning).

So taking all that into account, the idea of compulsory covid vaccine passports can also be seen as unethical. If one considers it immoral for some people to get jabbed right now and perhaps for a few years to come, then how on earth can proof of vaccination in order to travel or whatever be seen as fair?

What's more, it will hit the already squeezed under-40s disproportionately, just adding to the hardship brought about by the highly questionable coronavirus-containment measures. The idea of reaching
retirement age with a pension to fall back on seems a long way off for many in that category right now.

In many ways, in these crazy coronavirus times, one can't be too surprised with such a blatant disregard for large sections of our population. Our esteemed leaders' inability to think in any way clearly has been one of the many crippling side effects of the pandemic.

All one can do is to continue to highlight the many inconsistencies in the world's covid-containment battle in the hope that some of those currently controlling our lives will come to their senses. Events of the last 14 months don't instil one with much confidence, however.

What we might need is a new, deadlier global crisis to come along to snap these leaders out of their covid monomania madness.  
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

'Colombia's done OK, but prepare for a half-shut, half-open world for 2021' — Dr Bhattacharya

@wwaycorrigan

Dr Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the controversial Great Barrington Declaration which called for 'focused protection' instead of widespread lockdowns in dealing with coronavirus, says we're in store for a 'half-and-half world' for most of this year.

Controversial: Dr Jay Bhattacharya, co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration.

The Professor of Medicine at Stanford University made the comments in relation to the probability that many of the high-income nations will have vaccinated the majority of their populations against covid-19 by August while low-income countries will be lagging behind.

Colombia's 'done better'
Speaking to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast, Dr Bhattacharya, who is director of Stanford's Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Aging, said 'Colombia has done better (in getting access to vaccines) but (for) much of South America that's not going to be the case. I think It's going to take much longer than August to get the vaccines out to the older populations.'

'A lot of the world will still not be vaccinated in August. Places that are vaccinated will still want to close borders to those who aren't vaccinated ... I think there's going to be this half-and-half world where half are still going to have lockdowns and half are not.'

When asked for his thoughts on the Great Barrington Declaration, four months on from its publication, Dr Bhattacharya maintains that 'focused protection' is the least-worst option for containing coronavirus.

He said that lockdown advocates 'have not respected the most important scientific fact about this disease which is the age gradient, mortality and risk. For people who are younger, it is not particularly dangerous. The flu is more dangerous ... That fact is incredibly important.'

As for Dr Anthony Fauci, the popular director of the USA's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and now also President Joe Biden's Chief Medical Advisor, Dr Bhattacharya claims Fauci's neglect of other public health issues during the pandemic has been an 'abdication of responsibility'.

Watch the interview in full at https://youtu.be/ZSb8VnG4nPs or download a podcast version at https://anchor.fm/brendan-corrigan/episodes/Dr-Jay-Bhattacharya-on-covid-controls--vaccine-priority--failing-our-elderly--Tony-Faucis-myopia-epuh4v.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

 

Why I won't be rushing to get a covid vaccine

 @wwaycorrigan

[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.]

They are being dubbed the game-changers. More accurately, they are the weapon humanity is unleashing to render useless the real game-changer that has been holding us all to ransom for the best part of a year now — coronavirus, the virus that went viral.

The clear-liquid gold of 2021. (Image from pixabay.)

A jab for life

Our hopes of a return to something resembling the old normal BC, Before Coronavirus, hinge on the various vaccines being a success.

That being so, the world and its mother — particularly its elderly, vulnerable mother — must be anxiously awaiting their jab of life. Some, of course, have already got theirs.

As somebody classified as very low risk from covid-19 in terms of severe, life-threatening infection, I'm well down the inoculation priority list. Indeed, I'm in the last group in Colombia's five-stage vaccine rollout programme as things stand.

On top of that, considering the general lack of efficiency here across the board — unless you've got the money or palanca (appropriate contacts, that is) to receive a streamlined service — the chances of the programme being carried out smoothly and quickly are pretty low. The high-income countries' hoarding of vaccines also has to be factored in.

Put it this way, my current visa expires in November and it's unlikely the country will be in the final stage of the rollout by then.

Whatever the case, I'm in no panic to get the vaccine. Actually, all things considered, I'm happy enough not to get it at all.

For starters, as mentioned above, I am, in theory anyway, in the low-risk category for covid.

'The chances of completely eradicating coronavirus are, apparently, fairly low.'

Moreover, I would be quite surprised if I haven't had coronavirus in my body. As easily spread as it is, it would be pretty incredible if it hasn't already mingled intimately with me. 

In fact, if I have avoided it, then I should play the lottery (or it may be just another sign that few "agents" want to get intimate with me these days).

Some people counter that one is being selfish in choosing not to get vaccinated. How so?

Coronavirus, here to stay?

What's the risk if I'm not vaccinated but everyone else is (or at least those who are most vulnerable to serious infection)? As far as I'm aware, I surely couldn't infect those who are inoculated, could I?

Also, just because one has been given the jab doesn't mean he/she can no longer carry and spread the virus, does it?

The above, by the way, are genuine questions but from what I gather the answers are in the negative for all of them.

Another common retort is that if I had no problem getting vaccinated for yellow fever, hepatitis B, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), etc. then why am I getting all pernickety now for this vaccine?

Again, it comes back to risk. As we know, covid is ageist. The older one is, the greater chance of severe complications and death. Those other diseases mentioned above tend to be more indiscriminate killers.

Added to this, due to the nature of coronavirus, those who are vaccinated will most likely need to get re-inoculated every year or so, à la the flu jab.

The chances of its global eradication are, apparently, fairly low (it's well worth listening to the considered thoughts of Dr Jay Bhattacharya in this YouTube conversation). 

Remember, it's in the same family of viruses as the common cold.

Now, all that being said, if an unbiased, apolitical expert can give me strong reasons why somebody in my position should get vaccinated, rather than 'just because', I'm all ears.

_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".

Negative utilitarianism in coronavirus times

@wwaycorrigan
[Listen to an audio version of this blog entry here.] 

Only the very naïve believe that we live in a free world. Where you have a conflict of human interests, the concept of true individual freedom is unattainable.

Lockdown life: Do such measures cause more harm than good?

Delicate balance

My doing whatever I want has the potential to negatively impact somebody else. It's why, as an interconnected species in pursuit of both personal and collective goals — or happiness if you will — we have rules and regulations in place to act as checks and balances on individual and communal wants.

It could be thought of as a sort of negative utilitarianism: aiming to inflict the least harm on the greatest number of people.

In an imperfect, unfair world, it's perhaps the best we can aspire to. The perpetual problem inherent within it, for "freer" societies in any case, is finding that balance between allowing individuals to go about their business with as little interference as possible and protecting others' rights, as well as the environment we share.

Of course, at times one's personal goals merge nicely with the collective good. Everyone's a winner, to a certain extent.

When this isn't so, an arbiter, normally the state in its various forms, is needed to decide how much give and take is allowed in a particular situation.

'If the vaccine is not a success, we're going to have to seriously reappraise the damaging containment measures we've implemented.'

Thus, said arbiter must hold the respect of the parties in dispute in any given conflict. If this is lacking, the carrot-and-stick approach can bring the warring factions onside, provided there is a genuine effort to engage as fairly as possible by the arbiter.

If one or all of the disputing sides feel this fairness is absent, if favouritism or a lack of sincerity is perceived, then we have quite the tricky situation.

The wrong way?

This is a constant challenge for our leaders and decision-makers. We've seen it very much at play in dealing with the coronavirus where there is a not-insignificant minority, this writer included (see also my interview with the renowned British author and journalist, Peter Hitchens) who question the efficacy of the various measures introduced in a bid to contain the virus.

Not only are we sceptical that they actually work, but we also highlight the consequences they are having and could have for years to come across society. Coming back to our negative utilitarianism, we are potentially inflicting great harm on a great number. It needn't be this way.

Alas, this perspective is given scant serious thought as the majority stance of doing all we can to stop this coronavirus dominates the discourse.

Perhaps the majority will be proven right — history will be the judge of that.

For now, we must hope that the vaccine is a success for those who most need protection. (I personally won't be rushing to get jabbed and I don't think it should be compulsory — more on that another day.)

If it's not a success, we're going to have to seriously reappraise the containment measures we've implemented. This is because asking people to stop living in a bid to, potentially, save some lives is not a strategy that can go on indefinitely.
_______________________________________________________________
Listen to Wrong Way's Colombia Cast podcast here.

Facebook: Wrong Way Corrigan — The Blog & IQuiz "The Bogotá Pub Quiz".