There is a lot of controversy regarding the use of vaccines against COVID-19. Although they are very varied, the reactions to this problem can be classified into three large groups:
1. Some
(especially governments) are frankly in favor of everyone getting
vaccinated.
2. Others
(usually specific individuals) openly oppose vaccination, either
because they deny that the disease exists (deniers), or because they doubt the
usefulness of vaccines, or because they consider them dangerous.
3. A third group is in favor of the conscious and reasoned use of vaccines, but opposes compulsory vaccination, considering that such compulsion would be a violation of individual freedom and human rights.
As usual with this
disease, the WHO and the governments are firing shots in the dark, acting
without consensus or scientific support, and taking measures that usually are
more concerned about possible electoral votes than at the health needs of the
population. As an example of this, Austria has just commanded compulsory
vaccination of its entire population.
I offer a few considerations
to try and introduce rational arguments in a situation that is getting out of
hand:
· The
available data (which I have shown in a
previous post) show that vaccination is effective in reducing the
virulence of the disease, if a vaccinated person becomes infected. On
the other hand, vaccination also has risks (which I can personally
attest, as I almost died after receiving the second dose), but these risks
appear to be statistically much lower than the risk of dying from the
disease.
· In
recent months it has become clear that vaccinated people can get COVID-19,
and that they can also infect other people. Vaccination does not
protect against this, it simply protects the vaccinated, so that if they do get
the disease, it will be less virulent. Therefore, it should not be said that those
who do not get vaccinated endanger others. It is true that they
endanger themselves, but not others, albeit indirectly, if the number of those
affected is very large and their caring for exhausts the resources of the
health system.
· Lately,
vaccination of children between 5 and 12 years of age has been
launched. It seems to me a totally unnecessary and dangerous measure. In the
first place, children in this age group are precisely the least affected by the
disease: if they catch it, almost all of them are asymptomatic. Therefore, the
protective efficacy of the vaccine, if any, is much lower. It is even possible
(there are no figures in this regard, because no reliable studies have been
done) that the risk of the vaccine in children is greater than that of
suffering from the disease. In such a case, we would be putting our
children in danger if we vaccinate them. On the other hand, given that vaccinated
people can contract and spread the disease, it cannot be argued that
children are vaccinated to protect the elderly. That statement is
false, based on the data we have. Finally, it’s very dangerous to inoculate our
children with vaccines that have not been subjected to the usual previous
studies on this type of medicine. The usual deadlines have been greatly
reduced, given the urgency of the situation. We don't know what effects they
might have on them twenty years from now.
I think it is
clear that I belong to the third group among those listed at the beginning of
this post. I believe that the decision to vaccinate our children is premature
and unjustified. I also think that the mandatory vaccination Austria has decided
is very dangerous. It could be a new step towards the total abolition of
democracy and the transformation of the population into servants of governments
that cannot be controlled, which we’ll be able to choose from time to time, in
that way changing masters after a certain number of years.
Thematic Thread about Medicine and Linguistics: Previous Next
Manuel Alfonseca
No comments:
Post a Comment