A Mess in Hand—Better Than Two in the Bush?

Photo by Mufid Majnun on Unsplash

“Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.” George Santayana

Wile E. Coyote “could stop anytime—if he were not a fanatic.” from Chuck Amuck: The Life and Times of an Animated Cartoonist, by Chuck Jones  on the cartoonists’ rules.

Still some believe the world is flat. And anti-fluoride folk still abound, easily recognized—they’re the ones with rotten teeth. Though, by god they’ll riding their freedom to the end; kinda like Wile E. Coyote going over the cliff.

But this one here’s a puzzle. This paranoia over COVID-19 vaccines’ safety is a mess. Overshadowing the amazing story of how the vaccines were brought to the world—it’s been since March when I got the second Pfizer shot at Fairfax Hospital’s Inova Research Center, and the only thing that’s changed is I’m reporting to Mars nightly via my new microchip. That, and I’ve grown a third eye.

I kid Robert F. Kennedy. He’s a great guy, I’m sure, though with too much time on his hands.

Here’s my question: does not a society have the right to protect itself from fringe elements threatening survival of the whole? After 610,000+ deaths in the U.S., it’s hard to talk about COVID-19 as just a case of the flu. Judged by the statistics presently coming out of Arkansas, the anti-vaxxers are discovering a sad truth: the virus doesn’t give a shit about your politics, nor your paranoia. Given the chance, it will spike you. Though it’s hard to see it’s having any effect—George Santayana’s quote applies in spades.

So that’s point one. Point two is more complicated.

“Two lawsuits filed in DC federal court this month challenged a city law [in Washington DC] passed last year that allows minors to be vaccinated without their parents’ knowledge, saying the legislation violates religious liberty. The litigation comes as health officials across the country debate how much information minors should be given about vaccines, with at least one state seeking to limit teenagers’ access to shots that would protect them from COVID-19 and other illnesses.

“The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, cited parents’ religious objections to coronavirus vaccines and other immunizations. It said the law violates their religious liberty and “their fundamental right to direct the care and upbringing of their children.”

from Washington Post article, Two suits target law on vaccines by Justin Wm. Moyer and Julie Zausmer

The Washington Post article, Two suits target law on vaccines was published late July. My impression is the basic rights of a youth capable of judgment regarding their own health safety was being pitted in the lawsuit against a parent’s religious beliefs—boiled down to its essence, a rational fear of dying verses a belief system.

There was a time in Britain and its colonies when children were considered chattel—like slaves, wives and farm animals.

“In 1620 the Virginia Company complained to Sir Robert Naunton, principal secretary of James I, that London street children were unwilling to be sent to Virginia colony as apprentices.

“ ‘The City of London have by act of their Common Council, appointed one hundred children out of their superfluous multitude to be transported to Virginia: there to be bound apprentices for certain years, and afterward with very beneficial conditions for the children… Now it falleth out that among those children, sundry being ill disposed, and fitter for any remote place than for this city, declare their unwillingness to go to Virginia, of whom the City is especially desirous to be disburdened, and in Virginia under severe masters they maybe brought to goodness.

“In response, the English Privy Council granted the Virginia Company permission to do whatever necessary to force the children into the ships.

“And if any of them shall be found obstinate to resist or otherwise to disobey such directions as shall be given in this behalf, we do likewise hereby authorize such as shall have the charge of this service to imprison, punish, and dispose any of those children… and, so to ship them out for Virginia with as much expedition as may stand with conveniency.”

from University of Berkely Law: Children in the Colonial Era

It’s hard not to be reminded by the present law’s respect for parental rights in something as dire as being denied protection from a pandemic.

Leaving aside one’s suspicion that a simple superstition is being masked by the suits’ claim of religious freedom—lawyers always being willing to find a strategy to serve those who pay:

“The lawsuit, which asked the court to declare the law unconstitutional and stop the city from enforcing it, was brought [i.e. paid for] by Children’s Health Defense, an organization run by anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has supported debunked vaccine conspiracy theories and is listed as an attorney on the complaint.”

from Washington Post article, Two suits target law on vaccines by Justin Wm. Moyer and Julie Zausmer

It was my impression attorneys filing briefs who claim disproven falsehoods can be disbarred…

Kennedy ought to run for president—he’s such an altruistic person, always looking out for other people. It’s not clear what the teenagers involved might think, and they should be thankful James I lieth in his Westminster tomb. For the sake of argument, let’s grant these parents love their children, regardless of however misguided they may be regarding a pandemic that’s killed 4 million +. As Jonathan Swift might have said, we needed to lighten the population a wee bit, eh?

An enormous gulf lies between personal belief and empirical data, though it’s clear from the lawsuits some see none. And some claim it’s their right to be wrong-headed. The species isn’t totally foolproof—under the true definition of the word.

I didn’t say ‘scientific proof.’ Testing for evidence is the best that science can offer if we’re being truthful. Is it this inexactitude that disturbs these people? Where early religion sought to explain the world by fiat, science seeks to evolve—and given sufficient time, science tends toward self-correction. The jury’s been out for a while on religion and Robert Kennedy.

The early data we have from the field says the mRNA-based vaccines are the best at protecting against the worst of COVID-19. Understanding the science behind this is fascinating. These vaccines could be mistaken for the plot of a science fiction story.

“For many Americans, the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines less than a year after the pandemic began is, quite literally, unbelievable. That skepticism, in turn, is contributing to hesitancy to get the shot—especially among those concerned that the most widely used COVID-19 vaccines rely on messenger RNA, or mRNA, to induce protection. This is the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use. “

from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: How could anything developed this quickly be safe? by Moon Nahm, M.D.

The article goes on to explain the decades of research coming before the breakthrough. Now we’re waiting on the FDA to catch up for a final approval. One would think this many million doses later, the gurus at FDA might not find this difficult—hold on, my microchip is talking to someone in Russia…

“But the development of mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 is no overnight success. In fact, they have a remarkable back story stretching back decades. Without one researcher’s determination, two companies with vision, a longtime network of university labs, and decades of taxpayer funding in treatments for influenza and HIV, particularly by the United States’ National Institutes of Health, COVID-19 vaccines might still be years away. Even then, it took a massive, unprecedented investment by the U.S. government to get these shots from labs into arms faster than ever before.

“The remarkable success we have seen over the past few months in slowing the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States can be traced back to these four parallel stories and one big bet from the U.S. government.”

from COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: How could anything developed this quickly be safe? by Moon Nahm, M.D.

Distrust of science isn’t a recent phenomenon. In fact it’s been a theme in science fiction for a while. And Darwin is still a curse word in Kansas.

Applying moral certitude in a world of thorny uncertainty is the provenance of willful fools—with innocents falling into the trap. Certitude being “subjective certainty; the state of being certain or sure of anything; assured conviction of the mind that the facts are so and so; absence of doubt or hesitation; assurance, confidence,” from OED

The news today keeps declaring that the conservatives have gone over the cliff with their distrust of science—like that coyote. However, a plethora [1] of Baby Boomers now voting Republican once were hippies—and the 60s were rife with superstition. “Don’t trust anyone over 30.” If you recollect this, you must have been there. And we’ve all hated government one time or another; it’s a national calling. Some take it a bit further to, oh, I don’t know, say, break into the Capital for Q.

A balanced article in the Boston Review, How Americans Came to Distrust Science by Andrew Jewett provides perspective on our national paranoia pandemic that seems to be flaring up along with COVID-19.

The most famous of organized doubters of science—until Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. came along—were the Christian Scientists who argued against modern medicine. The NY Times article Christian Science Church Seeks Truce With Modern Medicine by Paul Vitello suggests even they may be changing their tune—or at least fine tuning it.

Superstition is one of the oldest, most virulent diseases we ‘superior’ creatures fall victim to, though it’s hard to grasp the why of it when it comes to dying by suffocation. Personally, I’d sooner go by other means.

Here’s yet another inflection point between religion and science. If the law is to respect (honor) a person’s spiritual beliefs, the greater obligation is to protect the lives of children from this pandemic, not to mention the rest of the population. It’s bizarre to realize the careful distance between the law and religion created by the country’s 18th Century founders centuries later is still under attack—by lawyers and people with college degrees who should know better.

[1] Plethora: “Over-fullness in any respect, superabundance; any unhealthy repletion or excess.” from OED—though I didn’t claim Baby Boomers have gotten fat…