I seldom read Henry Ergas these days. Used to, even though his obscure “learned” references were annoying.
Just a little while ago he explained that Putin really didn’t attack Ukraine because of the likelihood of Ukraine joining NATO, and cherry-picked an historical reference to ‘prove’ his point. It was to my thinking intellectually dishonest. A number of statements can be found where Putin is expressing strident opposition to Ukraine joining NATO. Ergas didn’t mention those.
It was unusual therefore that I glanced at his article in the Australian newspaper last Friday. It was on the topic of “Covid jabs do what they’re meant to do: reduce risk.” Blow me down with a feather, I thought. So, the spiel of if you get jabbed you won’t get Covid, was just a come on. All the while the powers that be knew that it wouldn’t stop infection, wouldn’t stop transmission, wouldn’t stop lots of vaxxed people dying.
Hmm? I suspect Ergas is fitting a theory ex-post to fit the facts; being wise after the event. Or, in other words, he’s putting lipstick on a pig.
A number of agencies he says – TGA, CDC, UK’s Health Security Agency, Europe’s Centre for Disease Prevention and Control – conclude that vaccination “at least halves the risk of infection.” And, thus, reduces transmission. According to Ergas this conclusion is based on clinical trials and population studies. Based on what specific studies? We are not told. The fact is, these agencies are rife with vested interest. It is extremely difficult to reach firm conclusions on the effectiveness of the vaccines in the field based on clinical trials. They don’t put old sick people – the only ones at material risk from the virus – in clinical trials. It is even more difficult to base conclusions on population studies. The only population worth studying is the population at risk; and I for one have not seen these studies. Has Ergas? If he has, he should point us to them – to add some intelligence to his claims.
Ergas goes on to un-cite “overwhelming evidence” that “vaccination lowers the incidence of severe Covid by 75 to 97 percent [and fatality] by up to 90 percent.” Where the heck does he get the confidence to believe these figures. I’ll say again, there is no compelling evidence that vaccination significantly reduces deaths among the only group which is susceptible to death – those with two or more serious co-morbidities; particularly those who are also old-aged. The only study worth spit would be one that focuses solely on this cohort. Where is it?
Yet again we are being sold a pup. But my puzzlement is why so many commentators, including conservative ones, are such ardent fans of Big Pharma’s vaccines? Who don’t seem to have the curiosity to look behind the spiel; to follow the money? And, leaving all else aside, why aren’t they jumping up and down objecting to vaccines being foisted on six-month old babies? Surely that’s a bridge too far for any conservative; even for those most ardently pro-vax?