WSJ White House COVID Censorship
Health care relies on informed consent for its legitimacy. Limiting information corrupts and degrades those choices.
It has become clear that the policy to vaccinate everyone instead of just the vulnerable has been harmful, contributing to the dominance of new variants and a depressed immune response. Considering the death rate for people under 30 from COVID is just 0.0003% there is little benefit to them from vaccination and vaccinating them effectively filters out the older variants and ensures that when the vulnerable do get infected, it will be with a variant that evades the vaccines AND the monoclonal antibody preparations that saved lived early in the pandemic.
But you won’t see that on Twitter or Facebook. The administration is pushing vaccines for 6 month old kids, which benefits no one.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Vaccination does not cause variants. That is the anti-vaxx falsehood at the heart of your rant.
The best public health response could not be more obvious. As we do with flu, continue to update and refine vaccinations as variants are identified and do our best to get people to use them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read more carefully.
I did not say that vaccination causes variants, I said it helps them become dominant. That is simple natural selection.
The point is that the process makes it more likely that what will be passed on to the vulnerable will be a vaccine evading variant, resistant to the monoclonal antibody preparations.
If you disagree, fine, say why. But the point is that patients, and their physicians, do not need to be shielded from both sides of the controversy..
LikeLike
“Read more carefully.”
Think more carefully.
Vaccination does not help them a variant become dominant. Vaccine resistance is why they become dominant. You are assuming that a vaccinated child is a better host for a vaccine resistant virus than an unvaccinated child. What is the basis for that assumption?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The vaccinated child filters out the variants covered by the vaccines but disproportionately passes on those that evade it. The next person in the line of contagion is more likely to get and pass on the evading variant.
LikeLike
So, an unvaccinated child exposed to a variant is different how? You are so wedded to your own hatred of the CDC that you are not thinking straight about very simple matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Vaccinated child is exposed to old variant, Does not get sick enough to pass is on.
Same child next day is exposed to evading variant, gets sick and passes it on.
Effectively the child acts as a filter.
Unvaccinated child passes on either, and granny gets sick but with a strain for which her vaccination and monoclonal antibodies protect her and she emerges with natural immunity which does protect her from new variants to some degree.
LikeLike
“Effectively the child acts as a filter.”
What nonsense.
In your scenario, the unvaccinated child has two way to get sick and/or infectious and the possibility of passing on either or both of the virus forms.
Here is a more realistic comparison . . .
A vaccinated child is exposed to the variant. He gets sick or infectious.
An unvaccinated child is exposed to the variant. He gets sick or infectious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If your scenario were operative, we would still be seeing the original strain, as it would have overwhelmed the variants by sheer numbers.
The variants have to be immune evading to gain a foothold and compete.
Remember that because of antigenic original sin, the vaccinated child will get sicker and stay sick longer when exposed to an evading variant than had he been naive.
The idea that everyone should be vaccinated is every bit as foolish as the idea that no one should be.
LikeLike
“If your scenario were operative, we would still be seeing the original strain, as it would have overwhelmed the variants by sheer numbers.”
Overwhelmed how? That makes no sense. Sure, in an individual who has been vaccinated the variant has free reign. But the variant has free reign in an unvaccinated child as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “It has become clear that the policy to vaccinate everyone instead of just the vulnerable has been harmful, contributing to the dominance of new variants and a depressed immune response.”
True enough, but I am more deeply concerned by the government’s behavior in this event than by the medical consequences. The story reports:
“These emails establish a clear pattern: Mr. Flaherty, representing the White House, expresses anger at the companies’ failure to censor Covid-related content to his satisfaction. The companies change their policies to address his demands. As a result, thousands of Americans were silenced for questioning government-approved Covid narratives…
“The First Amendment bars government from engaging in viewpoint-based censorship. The state-action doctrine bars government from circumventing constitutional strictures by suborning private companies to accomplish forbidden ends indirectly.
“Defenders of the government have fallen back on the claim that cooperation by the tech companies was voluntary, from which they conclude that the First Amendment isn’t implicated. The reasoning is dubious, but even if it were valid, the premise has now been proved false.”
Under these circumstances, America isn’t America anymore, and the American people are not the controllers, they are the controlled.
LikeLike
Holding selective application of section 230 of the CDA over their heads gives the government coercive power over the private platforms. That makes it censorship by proxy.
LikeLike
And not unlike war by proxy.
LikeLike