Doug is definitely aware of it. He wrote another piece in 2019 which tried to wrestle with the question of vaccine development and complicity in abortion. Alastair Roberts quoted this line in a discussion/argument with Peter Leithart about covid recently as well.
Doug has traditionally been pretty pro-medicine and pro-institution generally. He has been in favor of hospital birth over home birth, generally more in favor of day schools than homeschooling, opposed to “alternative medicine” stuff like homeopathy, in favor of “industrialized agriculture” and mass produced food stuff, in favor of, or at least not opposed to, birth control, etc… All of these stances drew the ire of certain parts of the insular reformed world (I’m not using the term pejoratively, I’m part of this world). However, the last couple of years of Trump, the election (and resultant conspiracies), and especially covid, seem to have fundamentally altered that disposition…
I’m not sure his recent position is fundamentally at odds with his older position. Again, as I’ve said before, the issue with the covid vaccines isn’t vaccines in general, but the attendant circumstances for this vaccines. That’s not to defend or attack DW. But I would personally hold to the same views as his 2015 post while also having significant ethical concerns about the covid vaccine today.
Strong agree. It’s also one thing to be generally pro-institution in 2015 and another thing to be pro-institution in 2021, for many of the same reasons.
Kroger doesn’t yet mandate the vaccine, but they are openly and proudly cooperating with the Biden administration in pushing the vaccine:
Kroger is partnering with the Biden administration in an effort to get more Americans vaccinated against COVID-19, the company announced Thursday [in May 2021].
It appears you were right, @aaron.prelock. Doug has partially retracted what he wrote in 2015, but he does say that he still agrees with the central point.
A while back I saw a study going around that showed PhD’s were the most vaccine hesitant group. Saw this today that seems to suggest that study wasn’t a good study
At the bottom the article says a new CDC study says twice as many people have had Covid as officially reported. Wouldn’t this cut the lethality rate in half too?
The raw number of deaths and infections (the “Case Fatality Rate” or CFR) isn’t generally used when discussing how lethal covid is. Currently there have been about 39.7 million confirmed covid cases and 643,000 confirmed covid deaths. If we were just taking those numbers and calculating a fatality rate it would be 1.6%, but no one thinks that is the actual death rate. As of the end of May (when the last updated model was made public) CDC estimated that there have been over 120 million cases and about 765,000 deaths giving an all ages “Infection Fatality Rate” or IFR at about 0.63%. For more on the prevalence estimates see here: Estimated COVID-19 Burden | CDC
Different groups have used different methodologies but I think most estimates have converged on an all age IFR of 0.5-0.7%. It should be dropping now, with most elder people vaccinated. and CDC data shows that 80.8% of covid deaths in 2020 were 65+ and 74.7% of deaths in 2021 are 65+.
Edited to add: If the CDC’s missteps mean I shouldn’t listen to a word they say, then my great-great-grandkids should still have a ban on listening to conservatives on social media.
Sure. But you are nutpicking on the one hand and comparing that to the governmental organization that claims to speak ex cathedra on The Science™️.
Every group of humans will contain liars, grifters, fools and frauds. They won’t be hard to find. Is it too much to ask that government regulatory agencies (or elder boards for that matter) contain a lower density of same than any random self-collected group of people?
To nitpick your nitpicking claim, the CDC has published likely infection fatality rates every few months throughout the pandemic. As early as May or June 2020, they had enough data to break it down by age. It’s fluctuated from 0.5% to about 0.65% or thereabouts. It’s never been a secret. They covered themselves by making clear that these figures were estimates subject to change. They gave a range of figures.
At no point since last summer has the CDC lied or fudged infection fatality figures.
The info has been there for anyone who cared to look for it. Jack Murphy, who I have never heard of, is a hack who needs to get better at Googling.
Not nitpicking, nutpicking. It’s the art of going through your opponents’ nuttiest members’ writings for the nuttiest quotes. Anybody can do it, because every group has nuts in it.
I’ve never heard of Jack Murphy either, but the CDC is inescapable.
Precisely what is “tyranny?” Is it the point at which, as Pastor Trewhella declares, “I’ll put a bullet in your forehead before anything gets put in my body or my children’s bodies, by you. That’s how men think, that’s how men talk. That’s how you know they’re committed.”
Those of us on Sanityville might not stand with each other at the exact same place on where to draw the line in our civil disobedience, but as we disobey, I do hope we would stand at the same place in our respect for authority. Love,
The mandate is either vaccinate your employees or have them tested. This as major retailers are finally selling home test kits.
Of course the idea is that, subjected to weekly testing, you would get tired of that and get the shot.
I doubt this holds up in court. Biden is doing something to do something. Like his executive action on eviction, this is a virtue signal designed to fail, so the executive can please his constituency.
I would define it as negligent, indifferent, or intentional fratricide of a subordinate by a superior. And in the spirit of the sermon on the Mount does not necessarily mean someone has to physically die.
It’s not a vaccine mandate when testing is offered as an alternative. The current plan is more of a testing mandate with an out for the vaccinated.
It’s clear the executive branch is trying way too hard to find ways to ram things down, but it’s not unreasonable to be subjected to regular testing for a widespread, nontrivial illness.
I’m more concerned that employers have to foot the bill for testing.
Maybe this goes the way of smoking bans, if I remember correctly: Employees should not be subjected to health risks like second-hand smoke or COVID, so even customers must not smoke nor be COVID-undocumented in places of employment: bars, restaurants, or anywhere but a very, very private club. I hope it doesn’t. Here’s an example of how smoking bans infiltrate even our own homes, since the gov’t regulates businesses and the public:
I don’t believe that the smoke-free workplace laws are primarily about protecting the employees, they are really about making it hard on smokers.
I guess I feel like I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth. I see the slippery slope and don’t trust the leaders, but I think it’s too early to drastically rebel against what’s coming down now.
I hate how cooperative large corporations are being with the party line. But there’s another way out, working for small business or myself.