Risk Decisions in WWIII

If you are considering getting vaccinated against the 2020 seasonal flu (aka “Covid”) or one of its “variants,” please consider this risk decision analysis.

First, the relevant data related to the health risk associated with the 2020 flu–the Infection to Fatality Rate (IFR)–is no different, and apparently lower (around .04 percent) than the normal seasonal flu.  Although the IFR itself could be faulty, what we can observe with our eyes (rather than our computer screens) tells us that the 2020 seasonal flu is not a pandemic.   If it was a pandemic, 3 to 10 percent of the young and healthy people around you would have died.  This has not happened.  The imperfect IFR and your own eyes are therefore the only relevant data points in your risk decision calculus.   Despite media propaganda and government threats and pressure, the factual and observable risk related to the 2020 seasonal flu is the same as it has always been; that is, normal and real but negligible.   So the risk related to choosing to not get a vaccine is baseline risk.  The “do nothing” decision means that you accept the normal risk of living and being exposed to illness and recognize that the data and observable facts show that this risk is the same as it has always been.

Second, what is the risk of agreeing to receive a “vacccine” shot?   At the moment, this is largely unknowable.  Although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of very suboptimal effects–miscarriage, myocarditis, Bell’s Palsy, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, etc.–all of this evidence is still anecdotal.   Real, meaningful data related to vaccination risk will only be known many years from now.

Because the real risk of getting a vaccine shot is unknowable until all accurate data are in and because this may never happen, in making this decision it is necessary to move from the realm of data to the realms of economics, behavioral economics, and human psychology to gauge the risk.   The primary, and I believe dispositive, fact in this analysis is the fact that no purveyor or seller of any vaccine has any legal liability for damages caused by the vaccine.  So even though the adverse outcomes listed above may still be anecdotal and the risk related to them may be minimal in relation to the total “vaccinated,” the fact is that if you are injured by the experimental vaccine, you will have no legal recourse.

A prudent risk decision must be comprehensive.  It must take into account the financial benefits and financial motives (and lack of financial sanctions) that will accrue to others affected by the decision.   Behavioral economics compels us to recognize that financial incentives (and disincentives) are superpowers; that is, it is unfortunately endemic to our human makeup that many of us will do anything for a buck.  This includes licensed drug pushers and doctors who have taken an oath to “do no harm,” yet will not think twice before sticking an untested substance into their patient’s arm for $500.   The biggest superpower at work in the vaccine drama is legal and financial immunity for vaccine sellers.  This is a powerful economic incentive for the unredeemed soul to roll the dice with other people’s lives and health.

The person making the decision of whether or not to receive a shot must therefore note that everyone involved in giving him the shot–the pharmceutical company, the doctor, the insurer, and the goverment–all benefit from the transaction.   The recipient of the shot, however, has very little proven or provable upside and the observable adverse downside has no safety net (legal liability), even if the risk is miniscule.

In sum, it seems to me that whether or not to receive a vaccine is an easy risk decision.  The choice is between doing nothing and accepting status quo risk, the risk of everyday life, and doing something that involves serious risk with an unknown probability where powerful third-parties have a powerful financial motive in persuading you to say “yes.”   The answer is obvious:  No.  Do not get the vaccine or any future booster unless and until the vaccine promoters:  (1) can prove that the vaccine actually improves normal, baseline risk–materially reduces one’s baseline risk from dying from the seasonal flu; and (2) remove all legal and financial immunity that applies to vaccine sellers.  I do not believe the vaccine promoters will ever satisfy these conditions.  The support for No. 1 can only come with time and sober, unbiased, testing.   That does not appear to be possible in the current system and mass hysteria environment.  Ditto for No. 2, immunity from liability is the problem and it is unwise to expect those who financially benefit from this rule to change the rule to their financial detriment.

As a final note, it appears to me that the people who have orchestrated this “pandemic” are shrewd students of human psychology.   The Covid playbook seems to have been written by a person or group that is very familiar with Charlie Munger’s Psychology of Human Misjudgment and/or Robert Cialdini’s Influence.   Mass Man has been subjected to a mass Milgram Experiment (complete with a bossy man in white lab coat), a Stanford Prison Experiment (Blue State governors playing the part of warden), and various uses of the psychological tools of fear, social proof, committment bias, and financial incentive bias to move the herd of Mass Man in the direction of unthinking compliance.

Read the Whole Article

The post Risk Decisions in WWIII appeared first on LewRockwell.

Share DeepPol