Why Are So Many Americans Vaccine-Hesitant?

9/9/21 Knoxville News article lists all the last year seemingly authoritative reasons to not trust the vaccines, many of which boil down to Trump Derangement Syndrome. “This is Trump’s witchcraft so I’m against it.” The Left needs to introspect a little and stop assuming this is all ignorant deplorables.

Source: Why Are So Many Americans Vaccine-Hesitant?

Throughout the summer of 2020, President Donald Trump predicted that a COVID-19 vaccine would be ready by year-end. Trump’s expectation was met with a wall of skeptical political, medical, and media reaction. One wonders especially about the effect on Americans predisposed to vaccine hesitancy, regardless of race, age, gender, or political party.

For example, a Sept. 16, 2020 Associated Press story quotes then-candidate Joe Biden saying,  ’I trust vaccines. I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump, and at this moment, the American people can’t, either.” As Trump told Americans a vaccine would be ready by year-end, Biden was telling American to not believe him – and that’s what dominated the headlines.

The publication Scientific American weighed in with a June 22, 2020, commentary headlined, “The Risks of Rushing a COVID-19 Vaccine, Telescoping testing time lines and approvals may expose all of us to unnecessary dangers.”

….

Speaking of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, his changing comments on masks and other subjects, including Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for COVID-19 vaccines, did little to build confidence.

An August 2020 Newsweek article on EUAs for COVID-19 vaccine began: “Dr. Anthony Fauci has said experimental coronavirus vaccines should not be given emergency use authorization (EUA) — especially if their effectiveness has not been proven — as it could undermine the development of others.” In Dec. 2020, the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were issued EUAs from the Food and Drug Administration.

….

Every American can’t be expected to have turned on a dime when the trumpeted warnings of too-quickly created vaccines were replaced – particularly post-presidential election – with the trumpeted announcements that there was now a safe and effective vaccine.

Does this mean news outlets or officials should have self-censored any stories questioning vaccine development? No. People needed to hear the full story and its possibilities. But instead of demonization and condemnation, people reluctant to get the vaccine should be given a bit of grace. They have justifiable reasons to wonder what to believe, and when they should believe it. And the organizations that for so long warned them should spend an equivalent amount of time explaining how, and why, the stories proved inaccurate.

Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on

I’ve held off writing about the hostages stranded by Biden in Afghanistan while the facts are sorted out. I’ve gone from Jim Geraghty’s Morning Jolt yesterday “Secretary of State Blinken: This Is Not a Hostage Crisis” to Michael Goodwin’s New York Post column “Plane truth of Biden’s Afghanistan botch” to Peter Hasson’s FOX News story “State Department obstruction of private rescue flights from Afghanistan revealed in leaked email.” Joe Concha brings it all home nicely in the tweet below.

Source: Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on

No, the Texas Abortion Law’s Enforcement Mechanism Isn’t Unprecedented

It repurposes a legal tactic that progressives have been using to great effect for a century.

Source: No, the Texas Abortion Law’s Enforcement Mechanism Isn’t Unprecedented

But these are not the only principles at work in the law, and for several centuries Anglo-American law has made some limited provisions for third-party enforcement of rights. Known as relator actions, these special proceedings are precedents for the Texas law that should be familiar to most lawyers. A well-known example in American law is the whistleblower qui tam action, which incentivizes people with knowledge of public fraud to pursue legal remedies against the perpetrators. Another familiar example is inter partes review of patents, in which citizens ask the Patent Office to invalidate patents alleged to be unmeritorious. The principle used to justify relator actions is that someone who abuses or infringes a public right should not get away with it simply because officials lack the resources, willingness, or access to evidence necessary to hold him to account.

It is difficult to imagine two public wrongs that are more significant than the intentional killing of a human being (in legal terms, murder) or the removal of a human being’s arm or leg (in legal terms, mayhem). If unborn human beings are persons, then abortion is murder, and many abortions involve mayhem. One could fail to recognize the precedents for the Texas law only if one assumes that murdering and dismembering unborn persons is not a legal wrong.

Ironically, Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent, failed to mention that the Supreme Court’s own precedents already authorize private persons to assert the rights of third parties in abortion lawsuits. Since 1976, the Court has allowed abortionists to assert the rights of their female patients in court when attempting to block enforcement of abortion laws, even laws that secure the health and rights of those very same female patients. No other medical professionals are permitted to assert their patients’ rights in order to obtain immunity from the law. And the Court has never allowed anyone to initiate a lawsuit against abortionists on behalf of their unborn victims. This anomalous asymmetry seems not to have been lost on Texas legislators, even if it apparently escaped Chief Justice Roberts’s notice.

The Court has often ignored basic doctrines of American jurisprudence when progressive causes are at stake, and not just in abortion cases. Most projects of social engineering that the Left has constructed over the last century, from zoning ordinances to discrimination commissions, blur the distinction between public and private rights. And the Court makes many progressive aims achievable when it allows leftist activists to assert rights not their own. For example, eugenics laws, such as the Virginia statute that the Court enthusiastically endorsed in the 1927 decision Buck v. Bell, empowered institutional administrators to pursue the forcible sterilization of vulnerable Americans when they deemed it to be in the “best interests of the patients and of society.”

It is easy to understand why abortion proponents have selective memories of these legal precedents and so little interest in the jurisprudential principles that undergird the rule of law; murder and mayhem are inherent legal wrongs, and the only way to portray abortion as a “right” is to tear apart the fabric of American law and to ignore what the Constitution actually says.

It is more difficult to understand why conservative legal luminaries who are not pro-abortion would portray the Texas statute as unique and unprecedented. Perhaps they have lost sight of the principles that render the rule of law coherent. The Court often abandoned those principles early in the 20th century in order to ratify progressive projects of social engineering. The only innovation of Texas legislators was to use the Left’s tactics in defense of our society’s most vulnerable.

The Second Civil War, 26: Alternatives — Stately McDaniel Manor

I spend a great deal of time, gentle readers, reading.  I read because I enjoy reading, because I find inspiration there, and because as I’ve gotten older, I’ve become just barely wise enough to realize how very, very much I don’t know and will never learn.  I do, however, do what I can to try […]

The Second Civil War, 26: Alternatives — Stately McDaniel Manor

Also this piece by Larry Correia

Did Making the Rules of War Better Make World Worse?

The Star Trek episode, “A Taste of Armageddon” was set in a solar system where two planets had been at war for centuries. The war was fought by computer, with virtual attacks being launched, and if they virtually succeeded, the casualties were tallied and identified by computer.

Listed casualties then reported to disintegration chambers where they were cleanly and painlessly killed.

When Kirk, for whom the Prime Directive was frequently a guideline, blew up the planet’s wargaming computer, both planets were faced with plan B — a messy war with real weapons, and destroyed buildings and nasty injuries and deaths. This proved terrifying enough to bring both sides to the table for peace talks.

Maybe war needs to be messy enough to be scary.

On the evening of March 9, 1945, the United States sent an armada of B-29 Superfortresses toward Japan, which for months had resisted surrender, even as a naval blockade brought much of the population to the brink of starvation. The B-29s were headed for Tokyo, and carried napalm, chosen for the mission because so many of the city’s inhabitants lived in houses made of wood.

Source: Did Making the Rules of War Better Make World Worse?

The True Reasons Why Medical Costs Are So High

While it’s easy to see some of these problems from a logical perspective, it’s very hard to actually fix them.

Source: The True Reasons Why Medical Costs Are So High

The Insurance Dilemma

….

Over time, health insurance became popularly provided by employers in the United States and unions fought hard to make insurance available to all full-time workers.

While on the surface, this may seem like a good thing — after all, why should only some people be insured? — it led to a problematic pricing environment. Doctors and healthcare organizations would be inclined to charge more for services when they knew insurance was going to be billed; it didn’t add more financial strain to patients but generated more revenue. In turn, insurance companies caught on and imposed policies that stated they wouldn’t pay more than standard prices paid by uninsured patients.

In effect, this led to a constant push to move prices higher; insured patients barely noticed, since they weren’t the ones footing the bill, but uninsured patients began having to pay more and more for their services.

Lack of Price Transparency and Competition

The lack of price transparency and lack of competition means that organizations in the healthcare industry aren’t incentivized to offer lower prices to consumers.

….

The Doctor Shortage and Costs of Professional Services

Administrative Waste

 

Horse Shit

There are lots of people dismissing Ivermectin as “horse medicine”, which therefore can’t be any good for humans. I’m seeing memes on Facebook that are making this point in a number of ways.

May be an image of ‎1 person and ‎text that says "‎SOMEONE CALL THE FDA THIS MAN IS ABOUT ΤΟ EAT HORSE FOOD. ه QUAKER OATS‎"‎‎

I chose this meme because I commented on it, and wound up in a comment string that at least four people found interesting.

OUT ON A LIMB

OUT ON A LIMB: Rolling Stone’s ivermectin fiction shows why Republicans don’t trust media.

It isn’t just one article — it’s the entire media eco-system that article like that create: Drew Holden: “We’ve got to talk about the Rolling Stone ivermectin article. Turns out the story about rural hospitals so flooded with ODs that they couldn’t treat other patients was made up, entirely invented. A lot of people took the bait, and I’ve got the screenshots.”

Source: OUT ON A LIMB

At least a dozen “news” agencies parroted the story.