.... you're dead?
But three strikes and you're out has been the rule for a very long time. So how many strikes do we have here?
Let's cut the crap, shall we? The mask mandates were known worthless by the people promoting them with alleged "science." They knew they were lying. The purpose of the mask mandates, all of which post-dated "warp speed" pre-purchases of an unproved technology that had never been successfully used before in man or beast was to do one and only one thing: Provide a basis of compliance and see if you'd eat the spouses and families of the mandating parties before issuing the REAL mandate.
After all, while wearing a mask was stupid and ineffective if it harmed that harm was modest to moderate in scope. Worn for a long period of time or with inadequate protocol, which was a certainty in untrained persons within the general population who do not have access to other people's money to pay for the required interval changes of said masks or biological waste disposal associated with proper protocol, the physical harm was mostly limited to taking a virus from one place (e.g. outdoors or in one business) and likely bringing it into another, or serving as a bacterial incubator which was most-likely to screw the wearing party -- and rather unlikely to screw anyone else. As we knew was the case in operating rooms as of 1981, forty years ago, wearing oral/nasal protection less-effective than an N95 is, at best, performative art.
Further, if you decided to tell your governor, mayor or other wagging-finger jackwad to stuff it up their ass (in other words, you knew how to read and bothered to look up the science on this for yourself) the damage accumulation, such as it was, ended when you took the mask off.
A shot, on the other hand, is designed to irrevocably change your metabolic profile -- whether for good or bad. The intent was always to force compliance all the way back to the beginning while at the same time actively and intentionally concealing possible adverse effects. It could never be any other way since there is no way to obtain adverse event risk data for something that frequently does not occur for months or years down the road without the passage of said time.
Trump and HHS Secretary Ash knew damn well this was the case -- as does Biden's cabinet. Biden, himself, may not even know that he just **** his own pants, but irrespective of that as the guy in the left seat he is still responsible when the plane crashes.
There are times that such a trade-off is probably worth it even with all these unknowns. In those cases an honest discussion with the public ought to be sufficient to convince people, and for those whom it is not, well, they choose and they accept the consequences.
But Covid-19, a virus with a similar profile of mortality and morbidity to Chicken Pox, was definitely never in that category and any claim otherwise is a damned lie. We knew within a couple of months that a third or more of the deaths were happening in nursing homes where less than 1% of the population resides; outside of that group risk, while present, was small and certainly not worthy of fear. Covid-19 is a beta coronavirus and two others circulate in society all the time. One of those two almost-certainly caused a pandemic in the 1890s and today it is still here, mostly causing colds and flus.
In other words there was never any reason to believe Covid-19 would be any different either originally or down the road. Within a couple of months -- by May 1st of 2020 -- we knew this conclusively. In fact all we could do was make it worse by doing stupid things.
Even today, roughly two years into this virus, we cannot characterize with accuracy who is going to get butt-rammed and who is not by this virus. There are myriad examples of elderly spousal pairs with roughly-equal morbid factors, all the way back to Diamond Princess, where one partner was killed and the other didn't even sneeze, making clear that there are risk factors we cannot accurately quantify. We have decent statistical probability adjustments which make clear that healthy children are at a statistical zero risk of being seriously harmed or killed while obese, diabetic adults are at much higher risk -- perhaps 1,000 times as much risk. But irrespective of said risk factors one can always draw the short straw and get hosed -- or laugh right into the face of a spewed viral cloud despite weighing 400lbs and having a blood sugar level over 200 and get away with it.
To put numbers on this related to those under 18 roughly five times as many children die every year from drowning as would die if every single kid under the age of 18 got Covid-19. Some ten to twenty times as many children die every year in car accidents and yet unlike the risk of a car crash the risk to a child occurs once after which they obtain durable immune protection against critical or fatal outcomes in the future. There is not now and never was any argument for trying to "shield" healthy children from this virus, whether by vaccination or otherwise. Indeed such an act is intentional, malicious harm since we know factually that infection produces lasting immune protection from severe and fatal outcomes down the road while vaccination does not. You're crazy to do anything that might interfere with your child acquiring said protection since down the road they may choose to get fat and diabetic and if they do having that protection via prior infection is the only thing that has a high probability of keeping them from becoming DEAD!
In my opinion anyone advocating for or attempting to "mandate" such a "vaccine" in healthy children is a murderous piece of ****. Intentionally placing children at risk of death where no statistical benefit will accrue to them, as all children have neither the knowledge or capacity, whether mental or physical, to say "No" and enforce it, is exactly the sort of monstrous behavior that someone who forcibly rapes a child engages in and all such persons deserve the same punishment.
As for adults it's a different story.
Competent adults have the right to choose to do dangerous things and calibrate their own risk and reward. For many years I chose to do intentional decompression diving, including in caves, which has a significant risk of death. Indeed out of a couple of thousand people in the US who engage in this form of recreational activity several die every year, so the risk is much higher than that of car accidents -- or Covid-19. In virtually every case when it happens the final analysis reads "death by stupidity", but dead is dead. My daughter likes to climb things that nature has caused to stick way up out of the ground; for obvious reasons stupidity in that particular sport comes with a high risk of death as well. I know several people who, in my opinion, drink too much. I've known a few who have killed themselves doing so, including a member of my immediate family. Several friends and family members, including a few who are deceased, smoke despite the well-known risks from doing so. Engaging in certain sexual practices common to gay men is dangerous as well. Being an adult comes with the right to make choices that one believes they will get some benefit from, whether concrete or not, and face the consequences on an individual basis of having done so. I had no right to interfere with those who drank themselves to death and I have no right to interfere with those who consume too much booze now, just as I do not have the right to interfere with someone's decision to smoke tobacco or use some other recreational drug. I can note that doing such a thing is dangerous and might lead to a bad outcome, including death, but that's all, and once I've noted it if I don't shut up I'm a nag, not a friend. The same is true here; if you believe the vaccines are safe and effective have at it but I don't want to hear the crying if and when the roll comes up "1" because we had every reason to believe it damn well might and for a huge percentage of the people, a percentage that has radically increased over the last year as we have learned more, the risk-benefit equation for saying "yes" was dubious at best. In healthy children that ratio was never justified and it has only gotten worse over time.
But if you were coerced then the person or persons who did it, which means your employer or officials at your school by the way, has earned exactly the same sentence as those who jab children at no statistical risk or sexually assault them. Whether they'll ever get that just penalty and whether you use the guillotine on their neck or bank account depends on you.
Understand that the latest screamfest over the new "variant" is due to four people in Botswana, all vaccinated, who got..... a cold. That's right -- none of them are in the hospital, none of them are in an ICU, none are on vents and zero died. The same "variant" has been detected all over the place already, including in Israel and other nations, all of which previously required full vaccination to enter their countries so the premise that we could stop it from getting in by requiring vaccination by travelers is now proved on a conclusive basis to be false.
Any further insistence on vaccination to travel and otherwise enjoy ordinary life is now a damned lie proved to be of no value whatsoever to public health as the very thing we were told would not happen if people took the shots in fact did happen in a fully-vaccinated group of people. Even if the new "variant" turns out to be wildly dangerous to vaccinated people or intentionally released and targeted at them it doesn't matter; the attempted means of stopping spread of the virus, vaccine mandates and travel restrictions for those who did not get the shots, is a proved failure.
Therefore any politician further advancing or trying to "enforce" such a thing gets to join the child rapists in terms of what they deserve as they are now trying to mandate you do a dangerous thing when the alleged social benefit they claim for it has been conclusively disproved.
Let me restate this in plain English for the idiots who have trouble with logic: Any "mandate" to take a jab is, as now proved by events, a demand that you play Russian Roulette -- a game of chance with no benefit that can and does sometimes kill you without warning.
I have the right to play Russian Roulette of my own free will and if I do, and it ends badly, that's on me. If I'm polite I'll do it outside so its easier to clean up the mess.
But a mandate to play Russian Roulette is in fact an act of felony assault with intent to commit murder and that justifies the immediate use of whatever force is necessary to stop it by the person being coerced.
Again, I have no quarrel with people who choose the danger -- which ever way that goes (infection, prophylaxis or vaccination) for them in their own exclusive evaluation. But any so-called "public health" argument -- that you somehow "benefit others" -- has long been extinguished by the wildly-insane commonality of vaccine failures and now, with this latest, a failure in a 100% vaccinated cohort to prevent the spread of a new variant all over the world.
Leaving aside that actual vaccines (of which these jabs are not) are and should always be about personal benefit and nothing more, evaluated on the basis of ones personal risk and health status, in this specific case the jabs have been proved to not prevent acquiring or transmitting the disease in question and thus, from a standpoint of societal benefit do nothing.
PS: The narrative is collapsing and so is the willingness to put up with the bull****. Notice the hospitals who have been forced to close ERs due to firing jab-refusing nurses? What happens when you have a heart attack and the ER is closed? The chorus of medical folks who have had enough with the lies is also becoming louder by the day and that which was previously unknown when it comes to the risk of these jabs has without exception come up on the wrong side of the ledger. We now have formal published medical studies showing durable harm from the jabs and the number of physicians and others speaking out on this is rising.
In addition both the 6th Circuit (which is hearing the OSHA mandate case and has not, thus far, dissolved the 5th Circuit's stay) and now the CMS Mandate, which hit health care workers, has been hit with a preliminary injunction -- which puts any medical center that fired people up to now for refusing in a very difficult spot with potential civil and, if discovery proves collusive action between medical centers then extortion is on the table which is a predicate to civil and criminal racketeering. If you think the Biden administration doesn't at least suspect they're ****ed at this point you're dumber than you look. This, by the way, means those who "implemented" such things ahead of the government are utterly and completely ****ed. As in "you have a purdy house and it will soon be mine" level ****ed -- or worse.
What's even better is that by delaying the mandate dates to after the New Year Biden's Administration has admitted that there is no "emergency." You don't let half the town burn to the ground by sitting on your ass for yet another month, right into the maw of cold and flu season, if there is an emergency with a respiratory virus. Never mind CMS, OSHA and all the other organs of government who sat on the issue for months. If you think the 6th Circuit won't take note of all that -- oh yes they will, and there goes the government claims. And your employer's, by the way.
As I predicted I fully expect this pattern to continue and indeed accelerate as we go through the next few months and once it reaches critical mass there will be no stopping it. If you're are and have been on the wrong side of this debate with regard to mandates and screaming as I have predicted for more than a year your time is about to expire and when it does all that will remain is whether you are ignored as lunatics for the rest of your life or whether the people decide that those 500,000 extra dead bodies that occurred solely due to your actions, along with all the mandated jab-related injuries, demand accountability and it will be you that sates said fury, like it or not.
Choose wisely Karen as its quite clear you are going to lose; the option to sue for peace and make penance may well have a time limit beyond which your apology and offer of restitution will not be accepted.
I for one look forward to that day for you deserve it.