A Mandatory COVID Vaccine Recommendation?

So Pfizer came out with the announcement that they have a vaccine for COVID with a 90% effective rate.

You Have A Higher Chance Of Getting Struck By Lightning Than Dying Of Covid. But whatever. A vaccine can come out so all the morons can take it and us sane people can get back to our lives.

Or can we?

State Bar Passes Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Recommendation

The resolution does contain conditions limiting its scope. Those include that the state government should only consider making vaccinations mandatory if voluntary COVID-19 vaccinations fall short of producing needed levels of population immunity; that an assessment of the health threat to various communities be made so that perhaps the mandate can be targeted; and that a mandate only be considered after there is expert consensus about the vaccine’s safety and efficacy.

Translate: If enough of you plebs don’t get the vaccine we’ll start to make it mandatory.

This comes after Pfizer’s CEO just dumped 62% of his stock right after announcing the COVID vaccine (odd timing, right?):

Pfizer’s CEO Dumps 62% Of His Stock On COVID Vaccine Announcement 

On Monday, Pfizer shares soared 16% following a bullish statement on the company’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine showed 90% effectiveness in preliminary results. Then on Tuesday, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla sold 62% of his stock.

The SEC Form 4 filing showed Bourla sold 132,508 shares at an average price of $41.94 per share, equivalent to $5.6 million – nearly top-ticking the 52-week-high.

The timing of this vaccine announcement is suspicious as well. Given the election and the trial period:

Why Did Pfizer and FDA Agree to Not Release the News of the Vaccine’s Success in October as the Original Protocol Would Have Required?

So the original plan was to make a public announcement after 32 cases, but instead they stopped doing simple lab tests until the day after Election Day, at which point they had 94 cases, almost triple what the protocol had said they needed for making a public announcement.

…

This means that the statistical strength of the result is likely far stronger than was initially expected. It also means that if Pfizer had held to the original plan, the data would likely have been available in October, as its CEO, Albert Bourla, had initially predicted.

Am I nuts to read this as saying that Pfizer and the FDA conspired to alter the agreed-upon plan, which would have required a public announcement of the vaccine’s success before the election, and instead Pfizer refused to even process the crucial samples during the last days before the election to delay having to make a public announcement until after the election? And that this ploy may well have cost Trump the election?

A few interesting things to note with the compilation of these three findings:

1. No one cares about COVID. The death rate is low and has been falling. It’s all political now.
2. It appears the CEO of Pfizer knew when the release date would be and planned his cashout accordingly. Whether he did this to maximize his own profit after initial declaration or to hedge his bet (if the vaccine is later determined to be a failure or dangerous) is to be determined.
3. Most countries have likely already established some form of herd immunity. By the time the vaccine comes out, they will say the vaccine is fixing the issue when it is obviously just the fact that the majority of the world’s populations have already had the virus and developed natural immunity. This is problematic because then in the future when a new flu virus comes around, we’ll be expected to lockdown for a year, wear face diapers, and get on our knees while waiting for the new BigPharma Cure™. We need to reject the narrative that the vaccine helped at all to prevent this in the future.
4. It is clear that Trump was right that a vaccine was on the horizon, even when everyone laughed at him and said “earliest is mid 2021”. It appears they held off on releasing it until after the election. I am not sure if this was to necessarily hurt Trump or just to try to maximize the number of people that would take it (if it was pre-election, likely democrats would have said not to trust a Trump vaccine, as they already were doing). Probably both.

For such a deadly virus, it is pretty hilarious that the first vaccine that comes out can beat it by a 90% effective rate and that 40-50% of people who get the virus are asymptomatic. Coupled with an astronomically low death rate compared to the initially hypothesized 3.4% death rate, this sure doesn’t seem political at all.

I personally won’t be getting the vax. I already had COVID along with tons of other close acquaintances. We know what COVID does. It acts similarly to a cold or a flu. We don’t know what the vaccine will do. It hasn’t gone through the rigorous years of testing necessary of FDA-approved items. Even then, some FDA items are trash. Hedge the bets. Play the safe card. No vaccine. Get your immunity naturally by contracting it.

You don’t need a 90% effective vaccine against a virus with a 99% survival rate.

But if enough people think like that, apparently they’ll start mandating it.

Read Next:

Evidence of Voter Fraud in The 2020 Election Keeps Piling Up

A Response To “What Economists Got Wrong About Globalization”

Vienna Welcomes Diversity: Another Islamist Terrorist Attack

If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.

You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.

Help fight the censorship – Share this article!