Critically Thinking about the "Greater Good" Argument — Part 3

Are COVID-19 Injection Mandates Scientifically Sound? 

John Droz jr. January 5, 2023 @ Critical Thinking

The Greater Good (GG) argument is at the core of policies that mandate COVID-19 injections. GG three major parts: 1) Religion, 2) Freedom, and 3) Science.

It’s too much to cover all these in one commentary, so there are three separate pieces. (See below for links to the other two.) Let’s briefly discuss the third.

Like a lot of Left-wing ideology (wind energy, climate change, etc.), GG is a presented as having the blessing of Science. This strategy continues to be used as it has proven to be politically effective, as it’s like getting the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. But is the GG claim scientifically sound?

Before answering that, we need to be clear what the GG belief really says. In a nutshell it is: the individual must sacrifice for the benefit of the community.

In other words government agencies, schools, businesses, etc. that ascribe to GG are saying: if the general society may possibly benefit, the individual can be forced to give up their free will choice, their financial well being, their health, and even their life.

In America, those personal sacrifices are appreciated as being HUGE, so we better be sure that the benefits are commensurately enormous. We do this by seeing if any scientific assessment has been made that supports the societal benefits assertions.

But what is a “scientific assessment”? Briefly it is an evaluation of a technical matter that has four elements. Such an assessment is: a) comprehensive, b) objective, c) transparent, and d) empirical.

So the fundamental question is: has there been a Scientific Assessment that has concluded that: COVID-19 injection mandates are a net societal benefit? NO!

Not only that, but there have been numerous scientific studies that have concluded the opposite. Let’s briefly consider the underlying scientific claims utilized by those who insist that injection mandates are for the GG…

GG Argument #1: If you have the injection, you will be less likely to catch COVID-19. That will be a societal benefit as you won’t be taxing healthcare system (like doctors and hospitals) and you will not be a transmitter (also a healthcare system benefit).

Contradiction A: The current COVID-19 variant is XBB.1.5, and there are zero injections that have been formulated and thoroughly tested for XBB.1.5. Therefore there is no scientific evidence that an injection will materially reduce your likelihood of catching COVID-19.

Contradiction B: Experts have concluded that COVID-19 injections may well be increasing the number of COVID-19 variants, thereby not only quickly making formulated injections outdated, but also increasing the load on our health system.

Contradiction C: Experts have concluded (regarding prior versions of the COVID-19 injections) that there is no scientific basis for claiming that infected injected people will transmit COVID-19 less than non-injected infected people. Pfizer admitted that since it was in a hurry to bring its injections to market, that no scientific tests were made about transmissibility of injection recipients.

Contradiction D: If the GG proponents wanted to minimize the load on healthcare system, then they would be advocating legitimate prevention measures — like citizens’ optimizing their immune system. There is zero downside to doing this, yet nary a word about optimizing immune systems is said by public health officials. Optimizing would reduce chances of a COVID-19 infection, plus lower symptoms (and improving outcomes) if it does happen — all healthcare system benefits.

Contradiction E: If the GG proponents wanted to minimize the load on healthcare systems, then they would be advocating an aggressive, scientific early treatment protocol with Ivermectin [~100 studies], HCQ [375+ studies], Vitamin D [100+ studies], etc. As indicated, all of these have numerous scientific studies supporting their efficacy and safety. The fact that GG espousers do not advocate any of these scientifically legitimate options puts a harsh light on their hypocrisy.

GG Argument #2: If you have the injection, and subsequently get COVID-19, you will have less severe symptoms. That will be a societal benefit as you won’t be taxing the healthcare system as much.

Contradiction B: See above

Contradiction C: See above.

Contradiction D: See above.

Contradiction E: See above.

GG Argument #3: If you have the injection, and subsequently get COVID-19, you will less likely transmit COVID-19 to others. That will be a societal benefit as those others won’t be taxing the healthcare system as much.

Contradiction B: See above

Contradiction C: See above.

Contradiction D: See above.

Contradiction E: See above.

Additionally, if the GG proponents were truly pushing a Science narrative they would:

i) Not be calling the COVID-19 bio-chemical injections “vaccines,” as mRNA and vector injections are profoundly different from any other common type of vaccine the public is familiar with (e.g., shingles, polio, etc.). As an acknowledgement of this reality, CDC quietly changed is longtime definition of “vaccine.” It would have been more honest of them to instead use a different word.

ii) Publicly acknowledge that in the short studies of the COVID-19 injections, that there was not scientific testing about the injection effects on people with dozens of diseases (e.g., Parkinson’s, Cancer, Diabetes, etc.).

iii) Publicly acknowledge that there has been no long term studies of mRNA and vector COVID-19 injections.

iv) Publicly acknowledge that some COVID-19 injection recipients will get ADE, or VAED, which can result in more serious adverse consequences in future infections. Here is a good layperson explanation. And then there is this related study.

Etc, etc.

The clear conclusion is that: a) GG proponents have not followed Scientific protocol, b) there is no legitimate scientific basis for the GG claims, and c) if the GG acolytes were sincere about their societal interests, they would be taking other scientifically sound actions, which they are not.

In other words: COVID-19 policies are based on political science, not real Science.

Critically Thinking about the "Greater Good" Argument — Part 2

Are COVID-19 Injection Mandates Consistent with American Democratic Principles? 

John Droz jr. January 5, 2023 @ Critical Thinking

The Greater Good (GG) argument is at the core of policies that mandate COVID-19 injections. GG three major parts: 1) Religion, 2) Freedom, and 3) Science.

It’s too much to cover all these in one commentary, so there are three separate pieces. (See below for links to the other two.) Let’s briefly discuss the second.

Like a lot of Left-wing ideology, GG is an anti-American political agenda presented in a superficially appealing package. Think Trojan Horse.

We need to be clear what the GG belief really says. In a nutshell it is: the individual must sacrifice for the benefit of the community.

Implicit in this argument is an acknowledgement that forcing citizens to get a COVID-19 injection is NOT about a net benefit derived by the injection recipient, but rather it is about a purported net societal benefit. This is a direct attack on personal rights. The underlying premise of this GG policy is that:

“We are not concerned about the adverse effects on you, the citizen, including death. We are only concerned about the net societal impact.”

In other words, government agencies, schools, businesses, etc. that ascribe to GG are saying: if the general society may possibly benefit, the individual can be forced to give up their free will choice, their financial well being, their health, and even their life.

But wait! America was founded on protecting the rights of individuals. Carefully read the Declaration of Independence, which (among other wonderful things) says:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Yet to many American citizens, being subjected to an unscientific (and immoral) vaccine is diametrically opposed to their unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. What happened to those rights?

A hint as to how the extraction of those rights is “justified” is in linguistics. The idea is that the Left is trying to create a new subcategory of American Citizens: radical nitwits. Once certain people have been relegated to that low level caste construct, then it’s easier for the Left to then claim that they no longer are “real” American citizens, so they no longer deserve the inalienable rights of real citizens.

How is this done? One way is that those who are objecting to a mandated COVID-19 injection are derisively labelled as “anti-vaxxers.” This is clearly a sham as: a) there is no true “vaccine” involved, and b) most objectors are only resisting the COVID-19 injection (i.e., they are not against shingles vaccines, etc.).

This is a classic guilt by association tactic, as in trying to undermine the credence of those who have scientific arguments against climate change, by calling them “deniers” or “flat-earthers.”

When this linguistic strategy is employed, it is a dead giveaway that the users have weak arguments — so they resorting to ad hominem attacks, rather than providing scientific evidence.

So what is going on here? The answer is found in the description of GG. The whole GG idea is a Communist perspective: individuals are expendable when the collective benefits.

So that’s the critical thinking thought here: are citizens OK with US Government agencies, schools, businesses, organizations, churches, etc. promoting communist ideology? Of course, so far they haven’t come right out and said that.

However, they are moving in that direction, as many of our leaders do acknowledge their support of various socialism constructs. Be fully aware that Communism is just a short subway stop from Socialism.

 

Critically Thinking about the "Greater Good" Argument — Part 1

Are COVID-19 Injection Mandates Morally Right?  

John Droz jr. January 5, 2023 @ Critical Thinking

The Greater Good (GG) argument is at the core of policies that mandate COVID-19 injections. GG three major parts: 1) Religion, 2) Freedom, and 3) Science.

It’s too much to cover all these in one commentary, so there are three separate pieces. (See below for links to the other two.) Let’s briefly discuss the first.

Like a lot of Left-wing ideology (wokism, social justice, etc.), GG is a presented as a moral imperative. Just so we don’t miss the virtue signaling, the word “good” is in the GG phrase. But is GG consistent with our moral beliefs? Judeo-Christian standards are the underpinnings of America, so what do they say about the GG assertion?

Before answering that, we need to be clear what the GG belief really says. In a nutshell it is: the individual must sacrifice for the benefit of the community.

[This can also be called collectivism, which is similar to socialism and communism.]

In other words government agencies, schools, businesses, etc. that ascribe to GG are saying: if the general society may possibly benefit, the individual can be forced to give up their free will choice, their financial well being, their health, and even their life.

What is the moral basis for such a position? To begin with, both of the GG words (greater and good) are subjective, which means that their interpretation is a matter of personal opinion, which means that it is a subjective standard.

The question is: who has the authority and competence to make an official GG declaration?

Further, GG is a concept derived from Utilitarianism.  Basically, that is about making behavioral choices based on what will make the most people happy. Unfortunately, we again run into subjectivity about what “happy” is. Also an important and interesting moral question is: do we have an obligation to sacrifice our happiness to make others happy?

But let’s get back to America: is there a Judeo-Christian basis for such a GG position? I say no. Here are three simple Judeo-Christian rebuttals to GG thinking.

First, is that Judeo-Christian belief is that every person is made in the image of God. As such, every individual has enormous religious importance, so they cannot simply be trampled on and discarded for some supposed secular societal benefit.

Second, the Judeo-Christian belief of salvation is intrinsically connected with each person properly exercising their free will. Any extraction of a righteous exercise of free will is contrary to Judeo-Christian principles.

Third, consider the parable of the lost sheep in the New Testament. Christ tells the story of a shepherd tending a hundred sheep, and one wanders off. His story is that the good shepherd leaves the ninety-nine, to recover the one. His praise of the shepherd makes clear that He gives full endorsement to the value of the individual — even over that of the group! This parable is arguably the direct opposite of GG…

So, if GG is not consistent with Judeo-Christian standards, what moral standards are being promoted here? It’s not much of a stretch to conclude that GG is actually a communist perspective — which means that this is the moral perspective of atheists.

So here is the critical thinking thought here: are Americans OK with US Government agencies, schools, businesses, organizations, churches, etc. promoting atheistic standards? Of course, so far they haven’t come right out and said that.

However, unless Judeo-Christian Americans strenuously object, it won’t be long until that is exactly what they will say — and proudly.

PS — IMO (as a non-lawyer) this religious argument is stronger than what is in the conventional lawsuit claiming that being forced to get a COVID-19 injection violates someone’s religious beliefs. Typically, those cases object to things like fetal tissue used in the manufacture of the injections.

PPS — What are the moral implications for citizens to choose to get injected (or their loved ones to get injected? It comes down to the Science: is there a net benefit for getting the injection, vs optimizing your immune system and then taking scientifically supported early-treatment therapies if you or loved ones do get the virus. See Part 3 for some additional details.

 Parts 2 and 3 will follow over the next two days.  RK