So what about vaccinations?

from Athens Indymedia

While the Greek state – like many other European states – is ramping up the pressure on its population to get the Covid19 vaccination, many seem to have ceded to this imposition of “making the responsible choice”. Let it be clear that we think individuals can have legitimate reasons to get the vaccination. We do not hold a moralistic judgment on getting vaccinated or not. But we keep on being reluctant. We think that the whole discourse about taking responsibility actually aims to give greater powers to the state by creating a dual society with privileges for those who comply and sanctions for those who don’t want to or cannot comply. This means a reinforcement of control and inequalities.

Believe the leaders

We don’t think we have to dwell on this very long. We have been forced to wear masks while walking alone in a park. We have been fined for being on the street at night while the metros were overcrowded during the day. We have been insulted for sitting on the squares while the indoors work places were running at full capacity. And we have seen them cynically calculating the costs of providing extra hospital beds against shutting down parts of the economy. We have seen them opting to hire more cops while the health of people was at stake. We have seen them trying to smother any form of protest while ramming through more exploitative and oppressive policies. They have lost all credibility and they know it, the only thing they can still do is twisting our arms and blackmailing us.

Believe the data

We are told that the data are clear, that getting the vaccination is the safe(r) choice. But even if we might accept that the existing data on vaccinations is correct, there is a whole lot of data we don’t have (yet). The first thing that springs to attention is that all the available vaccinations are temporarily approved through an emergency process. None of the Covid19 vaccinations are fully approved and they cannot be because we don’t have any data on the long-term effects. We can make assumptions based on other similar vaccinations in the past (although the vaccines based on the new mRNA technology don’t have such a history), but there are no guarantees about the long-term. Everyone taking the vaccination should be fully aware of this. And already because of this fact alone any obligation or pressure to take the vaccination should be ethically wrong.

The data we do have about the vaccines are mainly from trials in labs and controlled settings. These tests have to be set up in highly controlled conditions (even if they’re tested on people living their daily life) to make any meaningful conclusion about cause and effect. Of course, real life does have many complications, interferences, unforeseen events etc. Thus these data can only predict the behavior of vaccinations in a very limited way. Indeed, we have seen the recommendations on who not to give certain vaccinations to and the lists of possible side-effects being updated while the vaccinations are being administered in the real world and unforeseen problems start to occur. On this scale side-effects that only have an effect on a tiny percentage of vaccinated people can mean in reality a collateral damage consisting of thousands of people. Even at the best of times, modern medicine has far from an impeccable track record when it comes to respecting life in all of its diversity, nuances, complexities and totality. Make no mistake, this is an ongoing experiment on a massive scale.

Believe science

We are told to have confidence in science. But even when we only look at the scientific recommendations during this year-and-a-half of Covid19 pandemic, that statement is naive or dishonest. At the beginning of the pandemic in Europe, the wearing of masks was strongly advised against. The theory then was that the virus spreads by contact and thus disinfecting was the right answer (and there was a shortage of masks so they were reserved for hospital staff). Months later this opinion changed and the consensus now is that the virus spreads through the air and not contact. Suddenly masks became the answer to everything. Nevertheless, we also keep on disinfecting everything (instead of ventilating – this is called the sanitary theater, where the impression of safety matters most). This is an example that demonstrates that science can get it wrong and that broader society can take even a longer time to realize it was wrong.

Another example from the pandemic about how we should not just trust science is the fuzz around the lab-leak theory. Early on in the pandemic an article cosigned by many scientific specialists on the matter, declared the hypothesis that the Covid19 virus could be coming from a laboratory as total nonsense. At the time this article became the basis for mainstream media, social media, politicians and specialists to label any mention of the lab-leak hypothesis as a conspiracy theory. It took a whole year, at a time when this virus was nevertheless on the front-pages every day, before some scientists and journalists looked more critically at this article to conclude that the main piece of evidence was irrelevant and that some of the authors had a direct interest in keeping up the good name of (the methods of) the laboratory that would be the first suspect in the lab-leak hypothesis. Now it’s widely accepted that a lab-leak is possible and merits to be investigated (to be clear neither the lab-leak hypothesis nor the zoonotic hypothesis have been proved or refuted, they both are probable to a more or lesser degree). This is an example that shows that the scientific method isn’t as robust and foolproof in reality as it claims to be. Consensus that shifts due to non-scientific arguments (political opportunism, financial interests, etc.), a small circle of highly specialized scientists that don’t want or don’t have the time to control each other, etc. The philosophy and sociology of science have already demonstrated the gap between the ideology of science and its reality since the 2nd half of the 20th century (see for example Paul Feyerabend and Pierre Thuillier). Still people seem to hold on to a very naive conception of what scientists do.

Believe in group immunity

We are told to mobilize to reach group immunity and “be free” again from the virus. For this the aim of vaccinating 70% of the population is put forward. But actually this number dates from before the appearance of variants (like the Delta one) that are more infectious and against which the vaccinations are less effective. Let’s also keep in mind that the vaccines are designed to limit the severeness of the sickness, and the reduction of infections is only a side-effect (and most non-mRNA vaccines seem to be not very good at it). Given these new variants, many experts believe now that actually 80 to 90% of the population should be vaccinated to reach group immunity. This number would mean that – if we still consider it unethical to massively give minors a new and not fully understood vaccination and that some people can medically not get vaccinated, the whole rest of the population would need to get vaccinated. Any public policy that needs 100% compliance to succeed is doomed to fail.

Another factor is that immunity decreases over time. There’s already talk of booster shots after a 6 month or 9 month period (Would that be one time, or should it be repeated every half year, or every year? At this moment we don’t know), making the opportunity for failure even bigger.

Moreover, since this is a worldwide pandemic of a very transmittable virus it seems very unrealistic that a country or region could reach group immunity on its own. Big parts of the world have hardly enough supplies or the infrastructure to vaccinate a small part of the population, let alone the big majority of it. They also mainly rely on vaccines that are less effective at stopping infections. The chances of eradicating this virus are nonexistent. At this point it has reached its endemic phase, meaning that Covid19 will start to behave like other corona varieties with their seasonal epidemics. Group immunity is the latest carrot that is being dangled in front of our eyes, it will sooner or later be replaced with yet another one to make us believe that we can achieve “freedom” if only we follow.

Be responsible

The issue of group immunity (or at least vaccinating as many people as possible) points towards the question of who gets the vaccines. In many regions people that do run a risk of severe sickness from Covid19, don’t have access to health care and want to get vaccinated, are not getting any vaccination. While in Europe people that don’t even have a big risk of developing mild symptoms and have an infinitely small risk of severe illness have millions of vaccinations reserved for them. The hoarding of vaccines will increase again with the need for boosters. The fact that the WHO doesn’t want to recommend boosters now seems primarily inspired by these kind of worries. The responsible choice or the reproduction of global inequalities?

The building of group immunity and the “war against the invisible enemy” rhetoric goes in practice together with a strict control of access to the territory and an intensified population management. It seems like we have come to a situation where the so-called progressive side of society is now in favor of controls on movement and closed borders (of course, they will hardly notice it themselves since they possess the right documents to move “freely”). The responsible choice or an intensification of surveillance and exclusion?

If we have learned anything from the past decades – 9/11 and the threat of terrorism, the financial crash and the threat of bankruptcy, austerity and the threat of social cannibalism, refugee boats and the threat of racist pogroms, climate change and the threat of ecological disasters etc. – is that a position that doesn’t radically opposes the power of the state (no matter who controls it), will eventually only reinforce it and thus open up the way for the next cycle of crises provoked by the state and capitalism and their management by the state and capitalism.

- Anarchists

via: Act for free

There are 18 Comments

With increasing encroachment upon wilderness areas and the demise and extinction of an increasing number of species the probability that the omnipresent viruses that formerly relied upon these now absent hosts will now seek out the most popular species available i.e. perps.
This is only the first of many coming plagues and pandemics and every compassionate anarch must give their immunity system a vaccine to assist it in its war against the imperialistic-esque viral invasion.
Remember that the Earth's population would probably be around 1 maybe 2 billion at most if not for the regime of vaccinations from birth for diptheria, polio, smallpox, gangrene, chickpox etc etc.
Ironically, most anti-vac perps would be dead if not for the vaccinations they received in their infancy, so their hypocrisy should be called out.
To refuse free vaccination is to be nihilistically ideological or else have confidence in what can only be their cast-iron immunity system and medical insurance.

I am opposed to the covid vaccines, but not the ones for polio, gangrene, etc. They, and the circumstances surrounding them, are not the same at all.

Oh no they ARE NOT the same! Gangrene green rots away tissue. Ever seen or smelt a piece of steak or hamburger when its been left out at room temperature for a few days, Hahaa oh boy, that's bad, and if you get it you die. Covid basically shuts off oxygen to your body and you don't go green until AFTER you die from asphyxiation.

Yes I'm aware of the influence of toxins and living conditions weakening the immunity system enough to allow for the omnipresent viral cell mutations, HIV, Ebola also come to mind, and its no coincidence that the poverty-stricken malnourished regions within corrupted depleted nations under corporate manipulation are the nurturing grounds, or their laboritories, however I maintain a succinct rule whilst posting, and sometimes my efficiency in word placement and grammar has my comments erroneously described as generalizations. But yes, you are correct.

It's good to see some straight-to-the-point, sensible, and well-informed anarchist writing on this topic.

Finally a left-leaning source that doesn't just kowtow to the pharmaceutical industry and government narratives. I was beginning to think I was going insane.

An underdiscussed issue in vaccine mandates is enforcement and its side effects. I am vaccinated but refuse to carry a phone loaded with a closed source tracking app linked to government databases.

The use of vaccine tracking apps in phones often spills identity and location data. In a number of countries (notably parts of Australia) every place you scan that app creates a record of your presence. The countermeasures are to refuse the app even if vaccinated, and patronize only places that either do not have mandates or which accept paper records and do not photograph or write them down. That might mean boycotting most indoor spaces beyond the grocery store. In general it means not going anywhere with a doorman or a mandatory app checkin station. Certainly you can live without indoor sporting events and concerts, and a lot of things done formerly in nightclubs can now be found outdoors. Cancel gym memberships etc and get outdoors instead: it's free and nobody can put tracking app checkin stations everywhere outdoors.

If it is required for employment, using it nowhere else means no new records generated. For that scenario, one phone takes the app and goes only to work,the other is your real phone. If you don't get paid enough to afford a second phone, you are wasting your time working for that boss. Consider quitting that job if anyone else takes paper records once (or none) instead of requiring you to check in daily with an app. Do not tolerate "probation for all" imposed by politicians or bosses.

If vaccines are now mainly for self-defense and herd immunity is no longer possible, the only excuse for vaccine passports just boarded Delta flight zero and flew away. Get your vaccine, but avoid tracking apps like the plague they are.

It’s about time. I was starting to think there weren’t any “real” anarchists left. Just a bunch of authoritarian communists and self righteous liberals.
If you want a vaccine, go get one, but leave everyone else the fuck alone. If this thing was as deadly as we were lead to believe, they wouldn’t have to work night and day trying to convince/force/scare/bribe/guilt everyone into getting the fucking vaccines.
It’s completely possible, and probably even likely, things are going to get worse before they get better, but trying to blame the unvaccinated for the new strains is a fucking joke at this point. It’s only the last few weeks that we can even say that everyone who wanted a vaccine in the US could get one. Not to mention, it sure looks like the vaccines aren’t working as marketed. (75% of new cases in the recent outbreak in Provincetown or wherever were fully vaccine people)
The self righteous posturing is vomit inducing. The left is so proud of themselves for their obedience and boot licking, but superiority isn’t enough for them, they need to punish anyone that would like to decide for themselves what risks are and aren’t worth taking.
“TRUST THE SCIENCE” is the new fucking mantra for the authoritarian left. As if the science isn’t ever changing.(and very obviously not anywhere near settled in regards to the current situation)
Trust me, if I see people dropping dead around me, and a vaccine that seems to be preventing the deaths, I’ll go get one, but right now, that ain’t how things look to me.
The left has lost their damn minds. Doing everything they can to support the biggest multinational companies in the world, and propping up capitalism and government authority in every way they can.(and most “anarchists“ are right there with them)
I wish I could just be embarrassed for them, but it’s too terrifying. This won’t end well for anyone.

Also, for what it’s worth, I’m nowhere near an anti-vaxxer, just an anti capitalist, anti authoritarian.

Hate to harsh your interpretive science hat wearing vibe but the vaccine is working as described... no one promised no break through infections, the vaccine makes covid a manageable disease, it reduces morbidity and mortality, less hospitalizations, less deaths. most hospitalized patients are unvaccinated, if you don't want to bow down to big pharmacy then get vaccinated and avoid an ICU stay... nothing holistic about those...

Hate to harsh on your simping for big pharma and the state, but CDC data indicates that 74% of people who tested positive in the latest outbreak in Massachusetts were fully vaccinated.

No refunds.

Aaaaaand, of the 74% of vaccinated who tested positive, none of them were hospitalized but of the 26% of those not vaccinated, 62% are in hospital.
Oxygen respirators are getting scarce,,,,,coffins are,,,,,,,

Hate to tell you, but you’re absolutely wrong. 4 of the fully vaccinated people that became infected in Provincetown were hospitalized:



Are pretty stunning to me. What it shows more then anything is that a functional morphostatic boosting strategy should at the very least exist alongside a VOLUNTARY vaccine process. People that have a well functioning morphostatic(or immune if you wanna stick with retarded germ theory language) system probably have the same chances as those vaccinated. Along with this you have some variation between vaccinated and non-vaccinated commensalization(not immunization) to covid.

Joe Rogan is right.

Yeah, no one promised no breakthrough cases, but the marketing was certainly “Get your vaccine so you can stop wearing your mask and get back to normal life”
Now, just a few weeks later, they’re trying to say it’s because of the unvaccinated that we have to go back to lockdowns and mask wearing.

Which is obviously not the case.

There is no way the Delta variant can be blamed on low vaccination rates just a few months after vaccines became widely available.

Absolute garbage.

Do not overestimate the ability of science to provide absolute judgements. I will use a common, over the counter Covid antigen test as an example of how science actually works. The test kit uses a sensitized test strip in the top half of a foldable card, which must be wetted by the test solution after the loaded swab is inserted into the lower of two holes in the bottom half of the card and folded over.

We think of "negative" and "positive" results, but the test kits are real-world analog, not binary. The lower the viral load in a positive sample (the sample not necessarily the person under test) , the lighter the test line will be. The control line is always full dark if enough solution wets the test strip. A negative test is simply the absence of an line whatsoever, in a positive test both the control and test lines appear, but the test line darkens in response to something binding to viral proteins, whose concentraton in the sample is a variable. A very light test line might be visible to some people but not to others. Thus false negative rates will vary with the user's visual acuity and even room lighting. A magnifying glass and flashlight can reduce this issue but are not mentioned in the instructions.

As it is with these test kits, so it is with science in general. Confidence comes from repeatability, when something has been tested over and over again, confidence increases. Thus, we can have great confidence that drinking causes car crashes, because so many drinking drivers have crashed at higher rates than non-drinking drivers, decade after decade. This is an example of large sample size, and of "in the wild" study.

But I will be confident in science's predictions and objectivity to an accuracy of 99%.

Add new comment