Discover more from bad cattitude
denmark bans the boost in under 50's
as outbreaks of once common sense commence
denmark just posted covid vaccine policy for the fall and winter.
apart from those in high risk categories, they are not offering boosters to anyone under 50.
their reasoning is quite straightforward and very much in line with the repeated mantras of certain internet felines who were repeatedly heard to shout from atop any soapbox that was handy:
“medicine is everywhere and always a cost/benefit decision.”
perhaps you heard something about that.
well, it appears that the vikings have come back around to this once uncontroversial viewpoint.
one can certainly argue about the claims about those over 50, but at least the discussion is being had in terms that make sense instead of chasing the faux epidemiology of “covid vaccines stop spread,” “save the hospitals,” and “zero covid.”
the monstrously negative net value of these jabs in the young has been crystal clear all along.
and it’s not like the signal was subtle.
and yet these purveyors of policy persist in preventing any sort of cost/benefit analysis and get used as pretext by american universities to once more mandate their students get another round of jabs, this time not even tested in humans.
i mean, i know american kids are unhealthy today, but are they seriously higher risk that a danish 45 year old? because i’m struggling to buy it, especially in light of things like THIS:
and this is not a close call. it’s an unmitigated disaster on a risk reward basis:
“Per COVID-19 hospitalization prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities,” the study stated.”
and so another once “fringe” idea is now mainstream.
and yet our policy and prescription lags horribly because the alleged agencies of public health in america are still denying the very foundation of medical decision making by refusing to consider risk as well as reward to the point of outright denying the risk exists.
“safe and effective” is a meaningless term.
compared to what?
we’re way past any sort of reasonable error here. this is clearly institutional policy and deliberate malfeasance.
it’s willful blindness and self-serving shillery.
do not forget: NIH etc are getting BIG royalties on these products.
and they are not required to disclose them.
anyone else just a teensy bit nervous about allowing people with such clear conflicts of interest to determine standards of evidence and standards of policy around experimental medicine and mandates?