There is a new, discriminated and marginalized minority in the country. The public service media in particular like to tell the fairy tale of the good and the bad. That’s okay, because it helps the state. In which the atmosphere was evidently not yet irritable and lacking in solidarity enough. Only a few courageous actors, scientists and a few authors take sides against it. Because who still contradicts, is deleted more and more often – in the orcus of the anti-social media. The inquisitorial stigmatization of doubt must be perceived as a form of structural violence.
The pandemic is not declining as herd-wise as hoped. The reasons are unclear, but it is clear who is to blame: the unvaccinated. It is taboo that vaccinated people can also be infectious. Deutschlandfunk, a broadcaster that is otherwise not suspicious of dissidence, asked on August 31, 2021: “Can vaccinated people infect other people?” You can become infected and that means you can also infect others. ”Unfortunately, in Germany we almost exclusively deal with the delta mutation.
What is not to be underestimated and speaks in favor of the vaccination: it obviously protects against severe courses for a while. However, the “individual cases” in which this time is short are increasing from day to day.
The 2G experiments in the scene club Berghain or in clubs in Kreuzberg and other cities have all led to considerable numbers of infections. The players from the Munich ice hockey club who were infected with each other were all double vaccinated.
A double vaccinated person infects his double vaccinated wife
Although the effectiveness of the restrictive 2G method can be viewed as refuted, many institutions, including those on the left with their zero-Covid illusion, are now adopting this ostentatious exclusion. After all, it is the fault of the unvaccinated if they do not allow themselves to be immunized, the DLF made up for its defeat in the press review on October 24th. The illusion of reliable protection against infection has long been refuted. And regular booster refreshments could also lead to “immune exhaustion” in the case of predisposition.
I also observe increasing “vaccination breakthroughs” in my environment. An entire, vaccinated publisher is currently in quarantine and could not take part in the fair. A younger, prominent colleague of mine, twice vaccinated with Astra Zeneca, got infected on a reading tour, stopped it because of clear symptoms and then infected his wife, who had been twice vaccinated with Biontech. He says he would describe the course as neither “mild” nor “short”.
Even the global paradigm for fast vaccination leaves you at a loss. Again the thoughtful broadcast of the DLF: “At the moment, reports from Israel are worrying about this. More than half of the Covid patients in Israel’s clinics were fully vaccinated. “If I can count to three, that means that in the country with about the same vaccination rate as ours, but with the greater experience, there are currently more vaccinated than unvaccinated pandemic -Cases in the hospitals. Shouldn’t we have to ask pointedly whether the vaccinated are actually at greater risk because they have been persuaded that they are protected and harmless to others, that is, that they can return to their “normal life”? While most of the unvaccinated are inherently cautious.
It is hurtful to justify not vaccinating
For Great Britain it was said in the said program that those who have been vaccinated infect other people “only half as often”. It is worrying enough, after all, 80 percent are double vaccinated there. Allegedly only every 10th infection is caused by a vaccinated person. It is as if the virus, with its illogic, is driving us mockingly. Because our vaccination quota is probably just as high as the British one. But who knows that exactly, counting alone overwhelmed us. The most frequent expressions of the DLF broadcast were then: There is hope …, all previous findings point in the direction …, is currently not yet clear …, there is a lack of reliable data.
After all, the data is enough to have no doubts about the danger of the virus, to not want to have this disease at all. To perceive that young people who have not been vaccinated are currently in intensive care. As I am told by a nurse in an intensive care unit, who does not want to be named, people from socially disadvantaged backgrounds are mainly affected, patients with a compromised immune system, such as heavy smokers or overweight people. Why should the criterion of previous illness only apply to older people?
Why am I not vaccinated? It is hurtful enough to have to justify such a personal decision, because otherwise you will be dumped into the “radical lateral thinker scene”. Yes, three years ago, immediately after an influenza vaccination, I was ill for six months with severe bronchitis and a chronically high fever. Yes, that may not be sufficient reason to suspect analogies to other vaccinations. But maybe it is. Only now did I read the Nature of October 14, 21 that there may be a predisposition to react “distorted” to influenza viruses, especially if one is exposed to a vaccination. Experts call this “antigenic original sin” and are now (!) Researching whether this phenomenon also occurs with Sars-CoV-2. The reactions of the immune system are “one of the great puzzles of the pandemic”. No reason for clairaudience?
When does the legitimation for “conditional approval” of the vaccines no longer apply?
So there are many different reasons for clairaudience for different people. For example, all vaccines approved in the EU currently only have “conditional approval”. This means that they have gone through an accelerated procedure in which missing data can exceptionally be submitted later and not, as is usually the case, all of them have to be available before approval. This concerns, for example, the complete lack of studies on long-term effects, which has at least been admitted so far. Suddenly it is said that long-term effects of vaccinations are generally non-existent, which leaves some need for explanation. At that time, the EU set up an expert task force which, for the purpose of market approval, should ultimately weigh up whether the benefits outweigh the risks. But that’s difficult if you don’t really know how long the vaccine will work and antibodies also disappear soon after the disease in favor of memory cells. These are difficult to detect, but it is to be hoped that if there is a new infection, they will send out messenger substances that produce the required antibodies.
It seems particularly problematic to me that only contradicting information is known about whether the activation of the immune defense against Sars-Cov-2 slows down the defense against other viruses and bacteria. The virologist Alexander Kerkulé assumes that you are “less immune” to other things. So what is the risk-benefit ratio for the 95 percent of all diseases that otherwise die?
There is something irrational about the total focus on a disease, albeit a contagious one. Is it still permissible to ask whether, under these conditions, it was really a good idea to want to vaccinate the entire world population if possible every year? Wouldn’t the pharmaceutical industry have been better commissioned to concentrate the vast majority of government and private investment on research into a therapeutic drug? So it is better to bring relief and healing in a targeted manner – just as antibiotics against bacterial diseases have also succeeded in doing?
This is more complicated, but effective substances were known and should be promising in the trial phase. There was, however, no question of rapid proceedings. When a drug comes onto the market, there is no emergency for vaccines, the legitimation for “conditional approval”. “All human relationships are represented in the interests”, I once learned from Friedrich Engels. Why should it be any different in this particular case? The professional watchdogs of capital have known how to bite away any reflection on interests as a “conspiracy theory”. Brilliant.
Is the fight against the pandemic really a life and death fight?
In conclusion, I do not want to use the inflationary plea for those who think differently. Even the reference to Marx’s favorite motto: Everything is to be doubted, could turn out to be sub-complex here. The ethical questions we face are too difficult. Politicians’ claim that fighting this pandemic is a matter of life or death was a misleading presumption from the start. The rule over death is simply not given to us. We remain beings subject to nature. But the more artificial intelligence we create, the more natural we seem to sacrifice.
The hope of salvation is diverse, as we have known for 2000 years. Although civilization has extended life expectancy far beyond the biblical prediction, it has also restricted it again with wars, climatic stresses, hunger and diseases of civilization. At best, we work to avoid an unworthy, untimely death. But isn’t every death that was something other than peaceful falling asleep out of old age a premature death? Because it was caused by a disease that was unsuccessful or not yet possible to treat?
Progressive fellow campaigners would be well advised not to associate illness with guilt. Vaccination as an act of social solidarity? From there it is not far to patriotic duty. Vaccination for the fatherland. Democracy always carries the temptation to totalitarianism. The biological exclusion from the “healthy national body” was not that long ago.
I feel the recently issued bill from the test center like a traffic ticket from the public order office. In any case, I do not go to events at which the doubters, questioners and those who think differently have been singled out beforehand.