Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
One of the worst parts of the pandemic was its timing. Had it occurred at any time other than an election year things may have been remarkably different. It may not have been done in a conspiratorial manner, but it was universally accepted that part of the story was going to be told to maximize Covid-19’s political impact.
Every failure point had to be framed as being due to Donald Trump’s incompetence, therefore every death from the disease was going to be portrayed as a preventable human tragedy. Trump did not follow the science and now these people are dead. And we will tell you each of their stories, every single one as an individual morality play and all with the same moral: Trump kills.
Then something happened. Operation Warp Speed actually produced three “vaccines.” I use that word in quotes because they are not vaccines as we traditionally understood them, but rather an artificially produced prophylactic trick. The introduction of this “miracle” was delayed until after the election lest the news impact voting in Trump’s favor.
But there is a problem. Now that Biden (or whoever is really in charge) is ensconced in the White House, how do you dismiss deathly reactions to the vaccines as insignificant when you’ve already established that every single death is a moral tragedy? Take these two stories:
“Unvaxxed mother other of two, 35, dies of Covid, urges others to get vaccinated with dying breath”
“Mother of three, 35, dies of stroke after second jab, husband says she was forced to take vaccine”
Two deaths, two widowers, all motherless children. If every death is a moral failing, how does one make a case that the latter is more insignificant than the former?
If Trump had won, it would have been so much easier. “See, the vaccines don’t work! Trump’s incompetence forced these to market too quickly! It’s all Trump’s fault because he is ignorant of science! Everybody knows it takes a minimum of six years to get a vaccine safely to market! The idiot!” So all they can do is downplay the adverse reactions and pretend they don’t exist.
This has happened before. As we gear up to vaccinate children and adolescents, Saskatchewan-based blogger Kate McMillan reminds us of the great Canadian Blood Scandal. At the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, public health officials in Canada ignored the evidence that HIV and Hepatitis C were rampant in the medical blood supply chain and they weren’t doing enough to screen it out. Journalist Vic Parsons watched as his son David, a hemophiliac, first learned that he was HIV-positive in 1986 at the tender age of 15.
In a review of Parson’s book, Bad Blood, the Canadian Encyclopedia contains this passage:
Safety was second to budget trimming, Parsons contends. Turf wars buried scientific data that alerted blood agencies to potential dangers. Hemophiliacs, who became the miners’ canaries of the blood system, were themselves self-destructively passive. At every turn, writes Parsons, “eyes were shut to mounting evidence, until it was too late.”
And so McMillan asks the following, “Should it come to pass – say in five years time – that there’s a spike in leukemia, rare cancers, autoimmune disease or other long term side effects in these children that no one could have foreseen (because no one did long term trials) — what’s the game plan?
“I mean, surely there’s a game plan?”
Will this become a morality play or just a game of statistics?Published in