 Hey everybody, Dylan Schumacher, Citadel Defense. Buckle up, because we're gonna read a fun article today. Today's article is brought to you by the USA Today. This is Defeat COVID-19 by Requiring Vaccination for All. It's not un-American, it's patriotic. This is brought to you by Dr. Michael Liederman, Maxwell J. Milliman, and Dr. Stuart Younger. Link will be in the description box below so that you can enjoy this doozy by yourself. Subtitle, make vaccinations free, don't allow religious or personal objections, and punish those who won't be vaccinated. They are threatening the lives of others. Okay, so let's stop right there, shall we? Don't allow religious or personal objections. Ho, ho, ho! Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or a bridging of the freedom to speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances. I don't know what that was, that was just some random text I read on the internet. Okay, so here we go. To win the war against the novel coronavirus, which has killed over 158,000 people in the country. Okay, so just for fun, I looked up other things that kill people in America by list. Heart disease, still the winner, kills 647,000 people a year. Cancer, 599,000. Accidents, unintentional injuries. 169,000 people. Accidents have still killed more people than coronavirus. The thing about that, you don't really consider walking down, maybe we should make everyone wear a helmet. Chronic lower respiratory disease kills 160,000 people a year. Okay, so that was from the CBC. And that was for 2017. Continuing on. The only answer is compulsory vaccination for all of us. Well, what if I don't want to get vaccinated? Hey, I'm glad you asked. And while the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian. Oh, well, I mean, they're only going to seem draconian. They're not really going to be draconian. Oh, you just wait. Even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. Simply put, getting vaccinated is going to be our patriotic duty. Oh, well, they said patriotic duty. So sign me right up. The reason? When an effective vaccine is available for COVID-19, it will only defeat the pandemic if it is widely used by creating herd immunity. Wait a second. I thought I heard about herd immunity and it was once enough people get it, then we'll have it. So that was kind of like the plan originally. I don't know what you're talking about. Nobody ever said that. The next thing you're going to be saying is like, you know, people were just saying, oh, I've flattened the curve for two weeks, but no one ever said that. That never really happened. This has been still, it's stopping the disease entirely the entire time. Everybody knows that. Are you gas sliding me? No, no, absolutely not. That's what it's been about the whole time. It is important to note that during an epidemic, there's no threshold above which the protection conferred by herd immunity cannot be improved. Thus, the more people who are immunized, the lower the risk for all, including those who are not vaccinated. Including those who are not vaccinated. Well, okay, great. I don't want to be vaccinated. You get vaccinated and then you'll have it for all of us. No, we have to be vaccinated. Everybody has to be vaccinated. That's the whole point. But the article just said it increases immunity for everybody, even those who aren't vaccinated. So why do we have to be vaccinated? Shut up, do what you're told. Nor is there an alternative to vaccine-induced herd immunity in a pandemic. Wait, there's no alternative? How about the alternative of people get sick, they build antibodies, like his basic biology for the last 100 years and then they can't get sick again? No, no, it said there's no alternative. So I don't, I don't know what you're talking about. Okay, it's clearly in the article. And let's just think about that for a second. How is there no alternative? What about people who've already had the disease? People who've already had coronavirus and have recovered? Do we have to vaccinate them again too? Just because they literally already have the antibodies that the vaccine would produce, assuming it's an effective vaccine. So why would they need to be vaccinated if they already have the thing that the vaccine is supposed to produce? I'm relying on enough people to become infected and then immune is dangerous. How is it dangerous? This thing has over a 99% survival rate right now. How is that dangerous? As exemplified by the Swedish experience where COVID-19 mortality rates exceed those of its more cautious neighbors. I'm so glad they brought up Sweden because I did some digging. Okay, so I took a look and the total population of Sweden is 10.23 million. The total deaths they've had is about 5,763. If you do the math, that works out to about 0.00056... Now, you might say, okay, well, hold on, Dylan, that's not fair, divide the total number of cases. Okay, so let's do that. If we divide the total number of cases in Sweden, which is about 82,000, by the total number of deaths, 5,763, that comes out to about 7%. Geez, 7%, that sounds pretty bad. I mean, America's sitting around like 4% right now if you do the numbers. I mean, I guess we can't do it Sweden's way. In the article, they say, as compared to its more cautious neighbors. So I looked at one of its cautious neighbors, the UK, one of the most cautious out there, right? Total lockdown. The UK has had a total of 309,000 cases with a total of 46,000 deaths. When you do the math, it works out to about 15%. Wait a second, wait a second. Are you telling me that the UK, which is in total lockdown right now, has twice the mortality rate from COVID-19 that Sweden does, which has not been in total lockdown? I can only report what the numbers say. Broad induction of immunity in the population by immunization will be necessary to end this pandemic. That's not the only way pandemics end. Okay, well, I mean, what about the Black Plague? That was a pandemic that happened a couple times. Did that ever end? In simple terms, a refusal to be vaccinated threatens the lives of others. So that's kind of dangerous because what they're doing is they're equating unless you comply with the government, you're putting everyone else in a dangerous position, right? So once you've said that, of course you can tell people to do anything because if you don't, you're threatening everybody's life, right? It's the same kind of argument they've tried to use against gun owners for years. You shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. You're a danger to everyone else. Turns out I'm less of a danger than almost anybody else because I carry a gun, but that's neither here nor there. I just think it's interesting that the continued thing that they're gonna beat you over the head with is safety, safety, safety, safety, safety. Like you have to do this or you're not safe. If you don't do this, you're not safe. If you don't listen to us, you're not safe. If they don't do this, then we're not safe. And it's this extreme safety idol that they're gonna make everybody bow down and worship until they get their way. So here's what America must do when a vaccine is ready. Oh boy, I bet this is gonna be really good. Make vaccines free and easily accessible. I have no idea how much that's gonna cost, but it's not gonna be cheap. This is like national healthcare all over again. Do you see how they're gonna bundle that one right in here too? He has it pretty soon. Well, we provided free vaccines for everybody. We should just provide all medical services. Exempt only those with medical contradictions to immunization. It is likely that more than one vaccine platform will provide effective, will prove effective, as was the case for polio, and as a result, medical conditions that prohibit all COVID-19 vaccines will be rare. So basically they're saying you have no medical excuse for you to not get it. Do not honor religious objections. Man, if only there was something we had in law about that already. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or bridging the freedom of speech. The major religions do not officially oppose vaccinations. So what they're saying is the major religions, whatever that means, I'm assuming they mean maybe like Christianity and Judaism and Islam, I guess. I don't know what else they mean, the Abrahamic ones. They just say, well, the ones that matter, they don't object to it. So, you know, I mean, everybody should be cool, right? Like if your religion objects to it, well, it's not, thank you, come on. Do not allow objections for personal prevalence, which violate the social contract. Oh my God, these idiots. Okay, so I had to relook up the social contract just to make sure I wasn't crazy. Turns out I'm not crazy. As a philosophy major, I'm actually pretty familiar with the social contract. For those of you who don't know, the social contract theory, which is what it is, is a theory that says, hey, if we were all rational people and we all sat down before there was any government whatsoever, we would all rationally choose to establish some kind of government and hand over some of our natural freedoms, meaning I can do whatever the hell I want, whenever the hell I want, we would choose to set some of those aside in exchange for a system that provides order and law. Okay, that's social contract theory. It's a bunch of philosophers sitting around saying, why do we have government? And they theorize, one of the theories is, we have government because everybody would in general agree it's better to live in a society with order and laws than it is to live in one without one. Now, hey, I happen to believe that. It is better to live in a society with order and laws than one without one. I agree. However, you're gonna have to do a lot more digging to me to prove while objections for personal preference against the vaccine I don't want with a disease that has over a 99% survival rate is somehow violating the social contract. I mean, you're really gonna have to dig there. It's like, did they even know what the social contract was when they wrote that? I mean, have these guys ever considered any liberty at all? I mean, why wouldn't any liberty I wanna keep just violate the social contract? Oh, you wanna drive a car or that violates the social contract? Yep, you want guns? No, guns violate the social contract. I'm sorry, you would like a red shirt and not a blue shirt. I'm sorry, sir, that violates the social contract. You'd like a gasoline car over an electric car? Well, that violates the social contract. Why can't you use wind energy? It violates the social contract if you don't. How can government and society assure compliance with proper vaccines? Oh, dear God. Oh, this article keeps getting worse. How could this article keep getting worse? I mean, seriously, why do, how can they make it any worse? Vaccine refusers could lose tax credits or be denied non-essential government benefits. Health insurers could levy higher premiums for those who, by refusing immunization, place themselves and others at risk, as is the case for smokers. Yeah, so they're gonna come after smoking, too. I'm sorry, sir. You'd like to smoke, you can't do that. That violates the social contract. Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals. Schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes. Public and commercial transit companies, airlines, trains, and buses could exclude refusers. Public and private auditoriums could require evidence of immunization for entry. I'm sorry, sir, would you like to come to the baseball game? Let me see your papers, please. What, what, what, what are you talking about? Show me your immunization papers. Where are we? Are we in Germany? Is it 1937? The only legal limitation on government or private action is that it not be discriminatory. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Okay, if only we had some kind of document in this country that said what the government is and isn't allowed to do. Yeah, gee, if only we had some kind of law about that. Hmm, man, I really wish we had some kind of document that said what the government was and wasn't allowed to do. Well, I can't think of anything. I mean, I guess there's no way to restrict the government and what they're supposed to do. So the Bill of Rights was actually written to restrict government. The Bill of Rights says how far the government is allowed to go and how far it is not allowed to go. That's what the Constitution is about. It's a document that restrains the government. It has never been construed or purposed as a document that says what the people can do, rather it says what the government can do. They are the restrained party. The idea that the only legal limitation about what the government can do is whether or not they discriminate against certain people groups is, of course, ridiculous. Also, you are discriminating against certain people groups by saying you won't allow religious exemptions. That's inherently a discrimination. And it's hard to see how discrimination would occur if vaccines were free and accessible to all. The people who wrote this article, just they hate freedom. They hate any kind of liberty at all. This article would have fit so well under Stalin or Hitler or Mao or any of them, really. How then should immunizations be documented? Oh dear God, I'm so afraid to find out. A registry of immunization will be needed with names entered after immunization is completed because when has a government registry ever been a bad idea? Adequate immunization may require more than a single vaccination and the durability of protection by different vaccines may vary and may not be lifelong, requiring periodic booster immunizations. So that's a cute little line because in that one little line, they just determined the rest of your life. If you're going, you have to go and get immunization and then you have to keep going back for these other immunizations. And what's to say, what's in there or how they're going to combine those or they're going to roll it and do another one or they're going to mandate another one. How does anyone ever think it's a good idea that we could mandate what the government is allowed to inject into your body? How could that, how can you not see all of the terrible, horrible, terrifying places that would go? I don't know. Thus, immunized persons will need to receive an expiration date stamped certification cards, which would be issued to all who are immunized in the country, whether here legally or not. Maybe people who aren't vaccinated and don't have the right papers, they should have to wear some kind of like symbol on their clothes to show everybody they're not vaccinated so we can still social distance from them. You know, what could we, God, what could we use? What could we use to put on their shirts? God, just, man, I just wish I could think of something. I got it, a yellow star. These measures may seem draconian. I can't, I can't think of any reason why that would seem draconian at all. I mean, what does that, why would anybody think that? It would be costly, but ensuring universal vaccination is a negligible sacrifice compared with the costs, deaths, and social upheaval that a sustained pandemic is having on our country. I like how they make it sound like the sickness is what's causing everything to shut down when it's governments doing illegal things and governors and mayors being outside of their ability and making up laws which aren't legal, that's causing all the problems. If you're not familiar with the culture revolution or Mao or any of his new policies, you should look that up sometime. Often I look at those policies and I think, how could a government make a policy that forced the starvation of like 50 million people? How is that possible? How do you screw something up that bad? This is how, this is how right here, that's how you do that. I can't believe people who just think that these things would even be remotely a good idea. We acknowledge that the refusal to obey rules one considers unjust is an American tradition. Holy shit, that is the first smart thing they've said in this entire article. Yes, I agree with you. But, oh, why'd they have to say that? They were doing so well, why'd they have to say that? Another cornerstone of the American tradition is that we come together when it's necessary. The best example of this was during the two World War. Do you mean when we forcibly locked up all the Japanese American citizens and stuff them in internment camps? Is that, is that what he means? Why is he comparing defeating the Nazis to a disease? What does that have to do with anything? Why doesn't he compare it to the last pandemic? Why is he comparing it to literally killing Nazis? Why is a disease killing Nazis? I hope you see the subtle trick he's doing here. We do this a lot in America. We declare war on everything. We have the war on drugs. We have the war on crime. We have the war on poverty. That's what we do. We declare war on everything. And then we think we can just use any means and do anything we want in order to try to accomplish the end. It's a really stupid thing that needs to stop. Everyone contributed. No one was allowed to opt out merely because it conflicted with their sense of autonomy and draft dodgers who refused to serve were subject to penalties. What about, what about conscientious objectors? That's been a thing for a long time. True, conscientious objectors could refuse to use weapons for religious reasons. Okay, well, there you go. But, oh God, why does he always have to interject the butt? He was doing fine. They were obligated to help out in other ways, serving in non-combatant roles. There is no such alternative for vaccination. Oh my God. So that is about the worst written piece of trash I have ever read in my life. So there's no way out. You've got to be vaccinated or you're the enemy and a, I'm gonna coin this term right now before they start using it, viral terrorist. Oh my God, that was about the worst article of read in a long time. I am now stupider for having read that. I apologize to you. Hopefully my commentary was at least able to provide some humor and insight into the stupidity and profundity of the tyrants of the modern day age. I'm not joking when I say that this article would have been written and fit in very well in 1937 Germany. The idea that we can force people to do as we want for the common good and that we can force people into a collective and not as an individual is one of the most anti-American ideas that has ever permeated this country. It is an idea, of course, rooted in the Marxist failed ideas that have led to the deaths of over a hundred million people in the 20th century. So I for one will not buy into this at all. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the reason that we own guns so that when they come to force you and inject things into you that you don't know what and you don't know come from where and they say they're gonna do it repeatedly until you have papers. Well, that's why we have the Second Amendment is to secure our freedoms against such tyranny. I do hope this has been helpful. Thank you for coming with me on this journey. And I wish you the best of luck. Stay free, do brave deeds and endure.