Passports to nowhere;

Most vaccines — against polio, smallpox, measles and other diseases — prevent infection and spread. But not COVID-19 vaccines. Now that the battle is against the delta variant, they’ve become disease-tamers rather than infection preventers.

Governors and mayors from Maine to Los Angeles are demanding that public employees, and even nurses and doctors, hailed just months ago as heroes, get vaxxed or go without a job.

Just as politicians don’t read the bills before voting on them, they don’t keep up with science but still want to tell the rest of us what to do.

The groundbreaking findings in Lancet show that fully vaccinated people who came down with COVID infected others in their household at the same rate (about 25%) as unvaccinated people did (about 23%). The vaccinated had just as much viral load in their upper respiratory tract, making them just as contagious.

The British researchers also found that vaccinated people were only somewhat less likely to contract the virus (25%) compared with the unvaccinated (38%). That conflicts with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data showing the vaccinated are far less likely to contract COVID.

One thing is for sure: The science is uncertain on this. So, government should not be using a heavy hand to impose mandates claiming to make workplaces safer.

I have a question.

It’s about the upcoming approval (which is both inevitable and predetermined) of Covid-19 vaccines for children under 12.

My question is specifically addressed to our governing MLA’s, Cabinet, and health officials, along with the yapping jackals in opposition.

Should it come to pass – say in a five years time – that there’s a spike in leukemia, rare cancers, autoimmune disease or other long term side effects in these children that no one could have foreseen (because no one did long term trials) — what’s the game plan?

I mean, surely there’s a game plan?

Surely there has been discussion around the table at Cabinet, at Sask Health and elsewhere about how governments and health officials of the future will manage the fallout.

I mean, it’s not as though there aren’t precedents for the catastrophic failure of public health policy resulting from the advice and decisions of an expert medical class whose confidence was surpassed only by incompetence. One in particular comes to mind.

Parsons argues that the tragedy might have been contained, if not avoided, earlier than it was. That much is evident in testimony spilling each week from the federal inquiry into Canada’s blood supply, a multimillion-dollar exercise led by Justice Horace Krever of Ontario’s Court of Appeal. A veteran Ottawa journalist, Parsons builds a dry but unflinching case against a top-heavy blood bureaucracy – at its pinnacle, the Canadian Red Cross Society and the federal regulatory Bureau of Biologics – that operated a system riddled with flaws and false economies.

Safety was second to budget trimming, Parsons contends. Turf wars buried scientific data that alerted blood agencies to potential dangers. Hemophiliacs, who became the miners’ canaries of the blood system, were themselves self-destructively passive. At every turn, writes Parsons, “eyes were shut to mounting evidence, until it was too late.”

Because if you think that parents of injured children who were coerced by mandates won’t come looking for blood — think again.

It will be tainted blood scandal times 10,000.

Or — is the game plan the same as it always is? That being: “Sure, we’re spitballing. We have no fucking idea. Throw other peoples money at them, we assume. But, we have to get the media off our back. And I’ll be out of government by then, so that’s someone else’s problem”.

Because if that’s your game plan, I wouldn’t bet the house on it.

Not this time.

One last thing. Why is no one out there asking this question?