There's No Such Thing as "Anti-Vax," only Pro- or Anti-Choice

We now know that, with the Delta variant, the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, once exposed, carry the same viral load. While studies still need to be done, the most logical conclusion from this information, combined with data on rising breakthrough cases, is that there is no statistically meaningful containment of spread of COVID with these vaccines, especially if the vaccines do mitigate symptoms but not viral load and thus lead to more people walking around with COVID, spreading it to the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. The data from Israel, one of the most vaccinated nations on earth, show that transmission among the vaccinated proceeds at rates that are comparable to those among the unvaccinated--60% of all seniors (over 65) being treated for COVID in Israel are vaccinated. Even Anthony Fauci has admitted that "herd immunity" in the US is now unachievable with this virus and these vaccines.

As further evidence, the CDC last month changed the definition of vaccination from one in which the vaccine "produces immunity" to one in which it merely produces "protection in an individual." Note that while "immunity" is a precise, scientific term; "protection" clearly is not. Prior to 2015, the CDC defined vaccination as "injection... to prevent a specific disease or organism." So the definition has gone in six short years from "prevention" to "immunity" to "protection." What is next: "possible amelioration of severity"? That, at least, would be accurate to the current vaccines. One should also note the complete lack of reference in CDC terminology at this point to "herd immunity" as a standard for assessing vaccine efficacy.

If these vaccines provide neither meaningful containment nor herd immunity, then the logical policy position is to allow for medical choice. It's basically every man or woman for themselves with each person and each family having the right to make their own medical decisions. If you think the gains outweigh the risks, by all means, roll up your sleeve. But if you don't, then you have the right not to.

There may be instances where the risk/benefit analysis so clearly weighs to one side that one may argue from the data for mandates--homes for the elderly, for example, where the population is so much more vulnerable. But the case for the universal suspension of medical self-determination for a treatment where serious and even fatal consequences are documented and for an illness where 94% of those who die have serious co-morbidities and 95% are over 55 just isn't compelling. After all, we aren't talking about the inconvenience of making people wear masks here. We are talking about the introduction of experimental vaccines into people's bodies against their will that have proven to be exponentially more dangerous than any other vaccine in modern medical history.

And let's not pretend that taking away people's livelihoods or preventing them from entering public spaces constitutes an "incentive" rather than obvious coercion, just because no jack-booted thugs are breaking down the door to stick a needle in the arm of the vaccine resister. That's the argument of a totalitarian--one who prefers their iron fist in a velvet glove perhaps--but still, a totalitarian. If this is still America, that argument isn't even worthy of rebuttal.

So, let's be clear. "Anti-vax" is a fiction created to obscure the real debate around the suspension of medical freedom by government mandate. That's a debate worth having, but before we can have that debate, the name-calling must stop.