The use of a mandate implies two things: 1) that there is an urgency to accomplish a certain goal, and 2) there is no other way to accomplish this goal. The current vaccine debacle is a case-in-point. The primary goal of any government is to protect its citizens – all its citizens – and the goal in a pandemic is to end the pandemic. How did the government protect its citizens in the face of the current pandemic? Worldwide, the first reaction was to “lockdown”, advocate the use of masks, and “social distance” – until they got more information as to what we were dealing with. Scientists subsequently identified the virus as a novel coronavirus – which, in humans, produces a respiratory illness now called Covid – 19 (for the year it was isolated).
So along comes Pfizer who claimed to have a solution to the pandemic using new vaccine-producing technology. A technology that could potentially produce a vaccine (albeit an experimental prototype vaccine) within months rather than the years that it usually takes to manufacture and test a vaccine. The first trials with the new mRNA vaccines were particularly encouraging – as the new “vaccines” produced massive amounts of neutralizing antibodies against the spike protein (the part of the virus that allows entry of the virus into the cells through the ACE2 receptor).
Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson and Astrazeneca were granted EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) from the FDA in the USA because of the promise that the vaccines would prevent the individual from getting Covid, stop the spread, reduce the chance of having severe disease, and reduce the rate of hospitalizations. [Please note that I don’t know whether Health Canada calls the EUA the same thing, but the result was the same] The initial safety profiles for use of these “vaccines” appeared to be good as well, so the government created the following narrative that we have all heard – since it is still the dominant narrative espoused by the government and in the main-stream media ie., the “vaccines” are “safe and effective” and “only way out of the pandemic is to vaccinate everyone”.
In order to justify mandating a mass vaccination campaign, the government would have to demonstrate that all of parts of the narrative are true. Proving “long-term safety” for the government would be impossible – because long-term safety studies are not yet available. The government apparently believed the initial Pfizer data indicating that the vaccines would prevent individuals from getting and spreading the disease, and was the only viable way to end the pandemic, so they did the only thing that they could. The government used the media (and continues to use the media) to suppress any opposition to the narrative or any part of it.
The official mainstream media has not only suppressed but vilified and attacked individuals of equal academic rank from voicing their opinions – if their opinions questioned the narrative. They have banned them from FaceBook and YouTube. (And I thought that I lived in a democracy where the ability to “speak freely” was of great value). Unfortunately, this has created a schism within the scientific community – where we should actually have ongoing discussion, debate and consensus. It has also brought to the forefront the issues of Informed Consent. If an individual is making decisions about his or her health, or for a child under their care, then ALL scientific data and ALL scientific opinions must be made available to them. Otherwise, Informed Consent cannot be given – irregardless of the political narrative or motivation.
In addition, the EUA order in the US can only be maintained if there is no viable available treatment for Covid. This means that the government has had to suppress the use of any potential drugs that might have any effect on reducing the severity or duration of the disease. They also had to suppress the notion that the naturally acquired immunity in those individuals who had already had Covid – 19 and recovered was as good as vaccine-induced immunity. [By-the-way, there are now over 130 research papers indicating that natural immunity is robust, long-lasting and at least as effective as someone who has been “vaccinated”. The CDC on its website has a recent media press release stating this fact.]
The government has also publicly vilified the “unvaccinated” claiming that it is a pandemic of the “unvaccinated” – apparently to shame or coerse these individuals into complying. This is unfortunate because there are individuals who have had Covid, know how good their immune status is (according to overwhelming scientific data) – and have chosen to remain unvaccinated. In fact, anyone who has ever had a positive PCR test may have every right to refuse the vaccine – based on what the current research and the CDC says. In summary, vaccine mandates, in the case of Covid – 19, would only be useful if being vaccinated meant that you actually wouldn’t get the disease. No disease, no spread, no pandemic. It is a fact, however, that fully vaccinated people can (and do) get the disease and can (and do) spread the disease. This fact alone means that mandating vaccines and, by association, the use of vaccine passports, accomplishes nothing, and contributes nothing to the cessation of the pandemic. We cannot vaccinate our way out of this pandemic – mandated or not.