Vaccine Discrimination is About Money and Power, not Public Health Concerns


We are living through an extraordinary moment in history which has the potential to turn the Western democratic process on its head. It’s a time when citizens’ lives can be changed capriciously by authorities for refusing to inject a state-mandated vaccine into their bodies.

Citizens of Western countries can be turned away from coffee shops and restaurants, removed from their jobs and even held hostage in their own countries – not because of any crime, but because they have not consented to non-essential government-mandated vaccines.

While remaining an essential part of medical ethics and international law, the right to informed consent to medical treatment is violated systematically on a daily basis by a host of governments and companies all over the world.

The latest episode of vaccine discrimination came in the form of a new imposition of lockdowns in Austria initially targeting unvaccinated citizens, which was later extended to a country-wide lockdown. The Austrian government has since announced that vaccination will be mandatory in February 2022.

The mantra of public authorities – which is uncritically echoed by the legacy media – is that Covid cases are rising because of those who are exercising their right to bodily autonomy. It is the unvaccinated, allegedly, who are filling hospital beds. It is they, we are told, who are putting the lives of their fellow citizens at risk, and have consequently forfeited the right to lead a normal life; or to be treated equally in public life.

There are three glaring issues with this narrative that one must make a conscious effort not to notice: first, it is a massive simplification and flat out incorrect to suggest that “the unvaccinated”, as a group are uniquely to blame for hospitalisations. On the one hand, we know for a fact that vaccinated individuals can both transmit the virus and get hospitalised with it. Here’s a curious example published on TVM which was later removed.

Official data from the UK Health Security Agency shows that recent rates detected among over-30s who are vaccinated are significantly higher than among their unvaccinated counterparts. While the testing isn’t randomised, it reveals that the rates of infection and transmission between the two groups are comparable at the very least. Unless one moves the goalposts for vaccine efficacy, this shouldn’t be acceptable.

Even if one assumes, for the sake of argument, that infection rates are higher among the unvaccinated on average, treating this group of people as a uniform cohort makes zero sense when we know that covid risk is completely age and health-stratified. Elderly people are literally thousands of times more likely to be hospitalised than children, who have zero mortality risk. And people with underlying health conditions are far more likely to be hospitalised than those in good health, regardless of vaccine status.

Under these circumstances, the claim that there is a pandemic of “the unvaccinated” is patently absurd and untrue. This expedient grouping conceals the vast diversity within it, inherently disregarding past and present hospitalisation figures. So referencing “the unvaccinated” as a group, as Newsbook and other publications have done, is simply nonsense.

Second, even if for the sake of argument, we could get case levels down by introducing medical segregation, this would be completely unacceptable from an ethical standpoint. This is not something anyone with common decency should be considering. In this regard, Australia, which has deployed the army to transfer COVID-positive cases and contacts to quarantine camps has gone off the deep end. Australia can no longer be treated or seen as a democratic republic that champions the sanctity of the sovereign individual.

Besides the context of a mortality risk approaching that of influenza, there are certain things that you simply do not do, even if they may seem convenient. One is to force people to take medicine against their will; and another is to treat people like social outcasts because you don’t approve of their personal health choices.

Only a few generations ago, atrocities were committed by the same sectarian and exclusionary rhetoric that we are seeing directed against “the unvaccinated” today. While it’s normally unfitting to bring up the war for issues of our time, we’re witnessing similar pseudo-scientific and grotesque rationalisations against the new “enemy within”. The same way sections of society were seen as less human (race, colour, gender, religion any arbitrary criteria), policymakers are inviting the public to treat “the unvaccinated” with the same perverse contempt.

Thirdly, the incoherence and arbitrary nature of vaccine discrimination – as seen in practice for anyone not living under a rock – points to the bad faith of policymakers, and suggests that the real reason for discrimination goes far beyond professed public health concerns.

For instance, if the persistent coercive pressure applied on citizens to vaccinate was truly motivated by a desire to minimise transmission and hospitalisations, then there would be every reason to welcome the unvaccinated covid-recovered into society with open arms. Instead, policymakers act as if natural immunity after infection does not exist, nor is there any campaigning for living a healthy lifestyle.

Indeed, according to a major Israeli study, Covid-recovered individuals are 13 times less likely to be re-infected with SARS-CoV-2 than vaccinated individuals who have not been exposed to the virus.

In light of this evidence, does it strike you that policy-makers are acting in good faith?

Clearly, the goal is not to minimise disease transmission, but to force every member of the population to vaccinate. I’ll repeat that: the goal is not to minimise disease, but to maximise vaccine uptake.

The question is: why would you harness the coercive power of the state to force everyone, including children who do not need it, to submit to non-essential medical treatment? Why would you compel those who have recovered from covid naturally to undergo a therapy that they demonstrably do not need? And is it acceptable for the state to dictate what individuals put into their body?

Today, it seems that we are asked not to think critically; to conform to every so-called measure and to assume that the state is acting in our best interests despite all evidence to the contrary – to which I ask, was communism ever the answer?

I will let the readers draw their own conclusions. One thing is certain, however; whenever a population is invited to arbitrarily discriminate against a “dirty underclass”, based on simplistic caricatures, that has never ended well. With mass protests taking places all over Europe and a legacy media blackout on such events, it appears that people’s frustration with policymakers has reached boiling point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.