Why Defend Equal Rights for the Not-Fully-Vaccinated (NFV)
Last Updated: 23 December, 2021
In the face of growing vilification of unvaccinated ( or more correctly 'not-fully-vaccinated' (NFV)) people, including to compare them to bomb-weilding terrorists (see here), and selectively strip them of human rights (for example through the Government-sponsored vaccine passport system or Government-ordered lockdowns only of the unvaccinated (example here)), as well as calls to kill them (see here), it is important to consider what side of this issue we want to be on. Please consider the following arguments:
Too much discarded too carelessly. The vaccination passport system is government-ordered discrimination. It's taken us thousands of years to establish the concept of equality as one of the few guiding principles of our society. It might be the only thing keeping us from barbarism. If we give up that principle, we can logically expect our society to regress into something terrible for all but the strongest.
If the vaccine actually worked, you wouldn't have to worry about any threat from the unvaccinated. They would be no threat because you're immune. This is why, for example, if you get your dog vaccinated for rabies you don't have to worry about how many other dogs are not vaccinated or pursue them just to keep your dog safe.
If the NFV really are in mortal danger at their own free choice, we should not abuse the dying but allow them a little peace in their last moments alive. They will bear the fruits of their choice. Otherwise it would be like offering someone a rescue from a burning building, and they refuse, and you pulling out your gun and shooting them dead for refusing. We don't need to punish those who choose to remain in mortal danger: the danger is its own punishment.
The NFV are no unique threat. If the vaccinated can still spread the virus, then NFV and vaccinated are both threats, not just one of them.
The pandemic isn't caused by people but by a virus, and who made that virus? The notion that every other person is an unacceptable threat is damaging on many levels to permit to continue in the Public mind. Yes, other people could harm us, and yes, freedoms are a risk of hurting ourselves or others, but this is not the first virus nor the most dangerous and we used to accept those kind of risks knowingly in exchange for the benefit of our freedoms; really every freedom carries with it risk of harm and it should not be a surprise. To accept the thinking that each other person is an unacceptable threat is the definition and perfection of paranoia.
Did we forget somewhere that the virus likely came from a lab in China and maybe they have other surprises coming? Surely we can't be so easily misdirected to blame the unvaccinated instead.
It's not the unvaccinated who created the virus, who locked us down, who masked us, who mandated us, and who told us we can never go back to normal.
Everyone has the right to refuse even emergency medical care so long as they can make a conscious choice. It's a fundamental principle of medical morality.
If we allow Public coercion to become an accepted Government tool we instantly stop being a free society (by definition). Even if you want to live like that, in a society where Government orders not asks whatever it wants, with not even your own body considered private property, do you want to be among those who supported that system to begin? In comparison the villain in the 2011 movie In Time was careful to point out to the hero, near the end of the movie, that he didn't start the oppressive system the people lived under, though he enforces it. Those who support the rise of tyranny are the most to blame for it.
The NFV could be anyone in the future. If we allow the NFV to be persecuted, we face the same persecution ourselves if we refuse the next booster for any reason: even the same social category as those who never took the first dose.
Worse, the definition of who gets the passport and who doesn't could be arbitrarily changed by Government to include all sorts of issues, rather than just medical, once the discrimination system is established.
The easier the NFV lifestyle is, and the more equal the rights for the NFV, the better our option to refuse to comply with future Government demands if we deem them unreasonable.
Let's take a practical example. Let's say that you are pro-vaccine and you received your first dose of the vaccine and you feel fine. Let's say you support workplace mandates so that you feel safe at work. After your second dose, maybe you have a rare adverse event. They do happen to some people, and someday it could be you (that's why we buy lottery tickets); this is possible not ridiculous. So let's just say. Let's say the event wasn't enough to kill you, and partly because no one can prove the vaccine caused it, no physician is willing to sign for your exemption from the next dose (as actually happened to this lady's husband due to political pressure within the medical community). When the third dose comes around, you face a problem. You don't want another shot, but now the workplace mandates are on you, that if you don't take it, you lose your job. Maybe you have a family and a mortgage depending on you. What do you do? If you had defended the rights of the NFV in the first place, you might not have any punishments if you refuse to take the next dose. But because you supported workplace mandates, now you have fallen into your own trap that you thought was only for other people: now it's for you. Now the gun you pointed at someone else points at your own head.
If some people refuse the vaccine, it saves precious money and vaccine for everyone else. How is this benefit ignored?
We should not complain that the NFV risk burdening the healthcare system from illness when we allow so many other people to make much more obviously dangerous health choices and clearly burden that system. For example, we don't complain even now about the Public paying for the consequences of: failed suicide attempts, legal-drug overdose, defiant alcoholism and it's damage (eg. to liver) and all the care that needs, defiant smoking (eg. to lungs) and all the care that needs, harm due to medically unsupervised use of illegal and/or contaminated narcotics, junk food consumption, combative or dangerous sports, workplace hazards, and many other deliberately chosen health risks.
It's not the NFV preventing us from going 'back to normal'. Officials have made clear that they will never allow us to go back to the way we were before, and that they plan to re-invent our social order according to their own plan not ours.
Unvaccinated people are not simply virus respositories. They have their own immune system to defend them, and it's nearly always victorious over COVID. That's why, even as reported by official vaccine manufacturer research, according to this video, the vaccine only provides less than 1% of absolute risk reduction in contracting the virus. Since unvaccinated people, by vaccine manufacturer reports, have only less than 1% more chance of contracting COVID than the vaccinated, is that really enough of a difference to call them the cause of the pandemic, and strip them of their employment and human rights?
Don't Interfere with Success. There's a saying that if something is stupid but it works, it's not stupid. If the unvaccinated have survived for 2 years in a global pandemic and are still alive, their immune systems are apparently doing something right. Eventually there comes a time where we must admit that the unvaccinated have survived by their own immunity and they don't need a vaccine. Put another way, in real-life helping of others, sometimes trying to save someone who is already surviving without your help does more harm than good, sometimes even killing them.
The unvaccinated are humanity's reserve in case something is wrong with these vaccines. This is not an unreasonable concern considering that numerous pharmaceuticals have shown harm after released to the Public, and it doesn't help that the genetic COVID vaccines are based on a fundamentally new technology never before approved in humans. We don't know many of the short-term effects, such as to pregnant women, nevermind the long-term effects, for vaccines that were developed and marketed in less than a year from the discovery of the virus. For example, if it were discovered that the vaccines cause infertility, if we don't have a reserve of unvaccinated humans, humanity could go extinct. We need a backup of people, and if they're willing to take the risk, and it saves us money, so let them.
The unvaccinated are our last link to the 'normal' relatively free society and genetically unaltered humanity we used to have. They are stanging up for all of our freedoms, including your right to refuse your next government-ordered medical treatment.
The unvaccinated are a scientifically necessary control group to understand effects in the vaccinated (by comparison).
Back to COVID Page