Why I will Lose my Job - and Accept it

Forward:

I know almost certainly that I am about to lose my job, because I will refuse the current available Covid vaccination. The government is slowly and carefully moving towards progressive vaccination mandates. It will not stop at border workers, I know. I will be a close second.

I will not say who my employer is because it's irrelevant and I don't need to bring attention to them, and in no way do I want to leave them on a bad note.

When I lose my job it will be because of the government - not my employer. When the vaccination drama blows over I might well like to reapply for my current job. Hence I want to leave, when I do, on the best possible terms.

Why am I prepared to lose my job to avoid vaccination?

Firstly, because I can afford to. I have no debt, no mortgage, no kids, and no costly dependencies. I am lucky. Others will take the jab because they simply can't afford to lose their income. It's sad, but so be it.

I believe absolutely that no one should be receiving this vaccine if they do not believe it is safe, which is a sentiment shared by countless medical professionals. This is not what our government thinks and they've decided that they know best. I don't agree. 

On health grounds: It is factual that mRNA technology is highly novel in humans. It's invasive (not a topical cream) and still in an experimental stage of development. This means there's a substantial risk of nasty surprises being discovered over the next couple of years. No-one can logically deny this.

If the vaccine was new and essentially traditional, not novel, then I would be less concerned. But that is not what we're dealing with, with mRNA vaccines.

Already, independent researchers are sounding the alarm, and have asserted that their preliminary findings indicate that spike-proteins are damaging microcapillaries (the leaves on the body-tree, basically) which will (supposedly) raise blood pressure and could lead to serious long-term health problems, including death. There are also concerns with lipid-Nano particles undermining the negative charge of red blood cells, making them stick to each other in strange and dysfunctional ways. And more.

Substantiated or not, this is the point: We need to wait for long-term testing with any highly novel and invasive treatment. This is not 'hesitancy' - it's [now abandoned] standard practice. It's the reason why long-term testing was, and is, historically demanded. We simply have to wait to discover the surprises. 

The absence of long-term testing is why mRNA vaccines are classed as experimental. They're only supposed to be used for when the health risk of catching Covid is more serious than the speculated risk of the vaccine itself. You know...

"Well hey, if Covid is going to kill me when it comes, and it will, then I might as well take my chances with this radical vaccine". Fair enough, but this only makes sense for the most vulnerable.

I am not a vulnerable person. I'm 46 years old and in excellent health. The risk of myself getting hospitalised is practically zero, going by our best statistics. A vaccinated motorcyclist might be around 100x more likely to take up an ICU bed than an unvaccinated me.

The ethical argument for coerced vaccination:

Firstly, we know that everyone will see Covid eventually. Ask any virologist. The spread can be slowed - not stopped. This means that you can get the vaccine to protect yourself, but you are protecting no one else - only you.

Also, research has shown that the vaccinated are about as contagious as the non-vaccinated. In fact, they may be even more contagious in practice because vaccination can give a false sense of confidence, leading to foolish behaviours.

-My understanding is that vaccinated people still get infected through the lungs, nose and throat and pass on the bug, because it takes a couple of days for the T-cell immune response to become active. So, if it's really about delaying infection in others, then we should not be talking about vaccinations as such, but saliva testing. With rapid-antigen tests we can detect contagiousness (viral load) quickly, no matter the vaccination status.

What about ICU (Intensive Care Unit) capacity?

If we have poor ICU capacity because the government refused to expand it (and they curiously have not expanded it, to date) then we can argue that there could be a strong push to get the vulnerable vaccinated to keep hospitalisations under control. But it's absurd to use the ICU issue as an excuse for vaccine coercion. Otherwise, we should also be coercing people to lose weight and not participate in dangerous activities, etc.

How should the health system work? Self-abuser pays? Ok. Let's have that conversation then - and only that conversation. We shouldn't play games with weak rationalisations to win public support for coerced vaccination.

If we go down this road of restricted access to ICU for the unvaccinated, then the government should at least give people like myself the option of a tax rebate so I can then pay for my own private health insurance. It will be a small payment because my risk is so small. That's fine.

The creep factor:

For too many reasons it has become clear, to me, that everything is pointing away from the issue of dealing with Covid itself, and instead it's about the vaccine. No, I will not be a conspiracy theorist, though I do keep certain possibilities in the back of my mind (long story).

Alterative approaches have been relentlessly ignored, undermined and even blocked. Medical professionals that dare say anything that might induce vaccine-hesitancy have been openly threatened with the loss of their licence; and the Covid scare, going by our own statistics, has been blown out of proportion to an outrageous degree. The government has even bribed the media to push the one-sided pro-vaccination line.

Further, the government has done everything it can to maximise and strategise mass-vaccination. I believe that severe coercion is coming because that's where all the pointers go. Maybe it will go all the way to outright forced vaccination? I'm worried.

I believe that if 90% of the nation becomes vaccinated, then half of that 90% will be apathetic to the rights of those who resist the vaccine, and the other half will be cheering government coercion on - and largely based on ignorance. This, quite possibly, is what our government is patiently waiting for - before they become ruthless.

The government is now threatening to hold the country's borders to ransom, based on the number of people vaccinated. If Jacinda Ardern declares she will not open the borders until, say, 99% of us are vaccinated, then this will work very powerfully towards getting the nation against those who refuse the vaccine. This would be a most shocking use of manipulated social pressure. Sadly I can see it coming.

Please Jacinda, before turning the unvaccinated into the new "Jews", at least give us the opportunity, with reasonable assistance, to leave this country. I will respectfully leave at your request. I would rather leave New Zealand than receive the Pfizer vaccine. It's all gone far too irrational and creepy for me now.

Finally: There are so many red flag in this bizarre game that it's almost beyond the joke. I write more systematically on this here.

Note: I do not believe our government is evil. I believe that on some level they are being seriously misled, and are most likely suffering from chronic group-think and, for political and typical personal reasons, will be finding it almost impossible to admit to their errors and likewise change their minds. Alas, monopolies of truth are intrinsically dangerous.

Addition: 21-10-2121:

Very concerning, if the government sets the standard of 95% (and later, no doubt 100%) vaccination before restrictions on travel are removed, then the last 5% of people who refuse the vaccine will be in danger. People will hate the unvaccinated for "wrecking their lives" by not letting them travel, and this will almost certainly lead to street attacks. 

This technique that the government is using is akin to what schoolteachers used to do, to get kids to conform by getting the whole class against them, by making everyone suffer for their decision. Realistically, it's the same as inciting violence.

The media is to blame as well. Right now, media people have claimed that the last 5% of people who are unvaccinated will totally overwhelm our hospitals. That is an absolute lie, and has been corrected by opposition MP's, but most people will not see the correction.... 

The media are even reporting that the unvaccinated are already clogging-up our hospitals today, which is crazy talk because we have 39 Covid cases in hospital (We used to have about 6,000 in hospital for the flu, each year. You will notice that scaremongers never provide perspective). Outright lying on this level is unforgivable and dangerous to the unvaccinated.

Maybe I will soon be forced to appeal to the government for refugee camps for the unvaccinated, ideally to the north of Auckland (warm). We can work online and live frugally for a couple of years, in what's basically a long camping holiday. It's better than being lynched on the street and it should satisfy any dangerous mob as we've been 'kicked out'.

The place for Socialism?

 

Everyone says socialism doesn't work, and for good reason. On the national scale it has thus far proven to be a disaster (I talk about this here). 

However, I believe there's a model of functional socialism that does work that we can look at today: Cruise ships.

Operationally, a cruise ship works as a private, small economy that's totally centralised. Cruise ships work well to the end of it, and I think it could be a good idea, basically, to build a kind of cruise ship on the land. The following model gives the key differences:

1. Low density and economical to build. 

2. The people who live in it also own it. They own shares in the master structure, not just their personal house and land.

3. The residence are also the workers (usually).

4. It has its own currency. Like a casino, you buy and sell eChips via a phone app, which are then used for trade and payment within the development.

5. It's highly unregulated. Minimum wages, local taxes, and even building codes, etc, are set by the collective within the development. It's a private economy - the regulatory hand on the national level is light.

The socialist economy, like a cruise ship, would and should be strictly residential - not commercial. It cooks, cleans, educates and transports, etc, but for the most part it does not make and sell to the commercial economy, which I believe should be strictly free-market. The developments I propose have nothing directly to do with the wider free market. They're more like a collectivised extension of the home.

The effect?

Very cheap housing, life amongst your kind of people, practically no crime, relaxed living and a very low cost of living. 

It also provides a protective barrier for the residence in case of economic problems in the wider (free market) society, which is one of the reasons why it can be a good idea to operate a private currency within the development. 

If built from the ground up it can employ electric driverless technology (instead of traditional cars), which allows us to make unusually beautiful townships where everything is easily accessible, again like a cruise ship. Please expand the included image bellow to visualise this.

Competition: A cruise ship is still subject to the forces of competition. If they're not efficient and don't give the customer what they want, they fail. And this is how it would be for land-based 'cruise ships' as well. They must compete with alternatives and this will keep them in check.

So how about that? A socialist base that ensures prosperity and comfort where it matters the most, and without the plastic commercialism, yet at the right scale so people can always see clearly what's going on to keep their 'machine' in check. 

This I believe is where socialism can find its natural place. Small scale - and private. What about national socialism? Avoid it like the plague.

Extended video here.

------------------------------------------------------------

Libertarian note: If our society were made up of private "cells" (as I like to call them), of about 2,000 to 10,000 persons strong, it would create an extremely powerful force to resist government overreach, on the national level. 

On research, for example, the academic groups within the cells would do their homework on government policy, and communicate effectively within their group, naturally having the ear of the local people as they are more than strangers to them. This holds government policy to account. It is far, far harder to propagandise a strong private group over a fragmented mass. And also, it becomes extremely hard for national governments to create intrusive policy that really should be left to private groups. In my opinion, this is an important dynamic that we are sorely missing today in our industrialised socialites.