Compulsory/Compelled Vaccination

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
Communist
Compulsory/Compelled Vaccination
Printer-friendly version

At the start of all this I was very much of the view that the capitalist economy has put us in the dilemma of dying of the virus vs dying for the economy. But as things have gone on, I see it more as an all out assault on personal autonomy. I won't die defending bourgeois democracy but the right to go about my life without having every aspect of it micromanaged is sacred. It was only with the utmost reluctance i came to this position - deep down I was too afraid to be seen to be allying with right wing conspiracy theorists and nutjobs. But now, as we see airlines and public venues potentially requiring us to have had the vaccine, I'm fully on board with the lockdown/vaccine scepticism. It disheartens me to hear people saying this is 'marxism' or 'NWO' but I can't deny that the government is genuinely ruining people's lives on a daily basis.

Recently I read an article advocating that vaccination should be made a precondition for pro tennis players competing on the tour. Now the person who wrote this might argue that this isn't the same as making it compulsory - they might say that said individual doesn't HAVE to be a professional athlete. But how long is it then till this filters down into the rest of society? Til entering a music concert requires you to be vaccinated? A football game? The pub? A hospital? 

How long until employers make it a precondition for new employees? I'm not saying that people will lose their jobs, but they might find it bloody hard to get a new one if they can't enter the premises. They say this approach isn't a compulsory one - but as I read in Marlon James' ''A Brief History of Seven Killings'' - If it no go so, it go near so.

Think about the concept of constructive dismissal. Where a worker isn't sacked, but their environment is made hostile enough it is impossible for them to remain employed. Again I'm not saying any current jobholder will lose it cause of this. But I think there's a strong parelel between this concept and the 'compelled' vaccination approach - in this hypothetical case the government has effictively dismissed someone from being able to access important aspects of social, cultural and economic life. Millions will fall into this category. It will lead to the formation of a dual society. Surely we must oppose this?

I know it's commonly said the motive force between lockdown/covid vaccination sceptics are by and large right wing nut jobs - I am not that. I'd call myself a socialist and general egalitiarian. But the strange thing is, these purveyors of the neoliberal orthodoxy are probably 90% pro-choice with regards to abortion (thats fine, so am I), but their not really pro choice at all here.

If mass vaccination really is the answer it should be by persuasion not compulsion.

This might seem like hyperbole but things are moving so fast. Authoritarian measures being taken in the name of suppressing the virus which were unimaginable one year ago, are taken for granted now. Where will we be a year from now? Or five years?

It's commonly, and correctly, pointed out that the virus has disproportionately harmed working class, immigrant, and people of colour's communities and individuals. But everyday in my own life, and I'm sure it's true in general - the harm of the lockdown also falls disproportionally on said groups. The strongest discontent with this growing authoritarianism comes from all the above. I hear it all day at home, from my friends both at work and in general life. 

If vaccination is made a precondition of access to important elements of social and cultural life, then it will create a dual society with millions becoming part of a new underclass. If this shall come to pass, I will embrace my new ghettoised existence that will be the price of my refusal.

I might have been open to accepting the vaccine before but now they are seeking to coerce us into accepting it, I proudly reject it out of spite. In any case, isnt the fact that it is being pushed so hard in itself reason to distrust it?

I'm not especially religious, but the Bible talks of the ''mark of the beast'' as the coming of the apocalypse. Now if I was religiously inclined, i know i'd definitely equate this concept with the vaccination but I'm not that kind of conspiracist. However I know for a fact that this is some black mirror shit.( A UK tv show)

Tagore2
In a letter of concern

In a letter of concern published in The Lancet, researchers warn that certain covid-19 vaccines could increase the risk of contracting HIV.

Anyone who accepts a new vaccine before it is tested for 5 years is a fool.

Remember Sanofi's dengue vaccine! Effective in people already infected, it worsens dengue fever in people who have never been infected. There were deaths and 2019 several senior Sanofi officials were prosecuted in the Philippines. This vaccine had also benefited from an exemption to be placed on the market the fastest possible before having been properly tested.

In addition, some old, proven and safe vaccines, such as MMR, could also protect against Covid-19. But who cares? No one is going to make any money with MMR. A whole field of medical research, called the "repositioning" of old molecules for new diseases, is obstructed by states and pharmaceutical companies who prefer to push forward new, untested and expensive treatments and vaccines.

 

Communist
Tagore2 wrote:

Tagore2 wrote:

In a letter of concern published in The Lancet, researchers warn that certain covid-19 vaccines could increase the risk of contracting HIV.

Anyone who accepts a new vaccine before it is tested for 5 years is a fool.

Remember Sanofi's dengue vaccine! Effective in people already infected, it worsens dengue fever in people who have never been infected. There were deaths and 2019 several senior Sanofi officials were prosecuted in the Philippines. This vaccine had also benefited from an exemption to be placed on the market the fastest possible before having been properly tested.

In addition, some old, proven and safe vaccines, such as MMR, could also protect against Covid-19. But who cares? No one is going to make any money with MMR. A whole field of medical research, called the "repositioning" of old molecules for new diseases, is obstructed by states and pharmaceutical companies who prefer to push forward new, untested and expensive treatments and vaccines.

 

 

Thanks for your reply - I appreciate the sources you've shared, and will read them when I finish work. I think too many have bought into the idea this is a left/right issue. Or worse still, a petit-bourgeois concern - it might be that the resistance to lockdown/ vaccines has it's origins in the ruination of small business, however workers are also being attacked in larger industries including those who've been able to continue working

Tagore2
Quote:

Quote:

"In 1976, an outbreak of the swine flu, influenza A virus subtype H1N1 at Fort Dix, New Jersey caused one death, hospitalized 13, and led to a mass immunization program. After the program began, the vaccine was associated with an increase in reports of Guillain-Barré Syndrome, which can cause paralysis, respiratory arrest, and death. The immunization program was ended after approximately 25% of the population of the United States had been administered the vaccine."

Wikipedia: 1976 swine flu outbreak

Quote:

"Pandemrix is an influenza vaccine for influenza pandemics, such as the 2009 flu pandemic. The vaccine was developed by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)[1] and patented in September 2006.[2]

The vaccine was one of the H1N1 vaccines approved for use by the European Commission in September 2009, upon the recommendations of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA).[3] The vaccine is only approved for use when an H1N1 influenza pandemic has been officially declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) or European Union (EU).[3] The vaccine was initially developed as a pandemic mock-up vaccine using an H5N1 strain.[4]

Pandemrix was found to be associated with an increased risk of narcolepsy[5] following investigations by Swedish and Finnish health authorities[6] and had higher rates of adverse events than other vaccines for H1N1.[7] This resulted in several legal cases.[8] Stanford University studies suggested that narcolepsy is an autoimmune disease[9] and that it appears to be triggered by upper airway respiratory infections in China, where 2009 H1N1 vaccines did not contain adjuvants.[10]"

Wikipedia: Pandemrix

A vaccination program should never be decided in a rush and in fear.

Any immunization program has potential benefits and harms, which must be carefully assessed before the campaign is launched.

If the risk of the disease is low, if there is a reliable and safe treatment, then a vaccination campaign is not necessarily a good health policy.

If, moreover, the vaccine has not been tested for at least 5 years, comes from an experimental technology never tested on human beings (RNA vaccine, gene therapy), choosing the strategy of a vaccination campaign is worse than 'an adventure, it's just madness.

Communist
Authoritarianism as class war

Tagore - Do you think we're witnessing the start of a new era of world authoritarianism? I feel more and more that so much of the current restrictions will remain in place in some shape or form unless they are directly confronted and opposed.

I say no to the new normal. But also no to the old normal. This lockdown is seriously hurting the working class. The class war is here - it may not be under the red flag, it may not share our rhetoric, but it's here.

All anti-capitalists need to get on board and quick or risk losing relevance. There's anarchists out there who've enthusiastically endorsed state repression. The liberal left have shod even the pretence of representing working class constituencies. Lets not us make the same mistake.

Opposing lockdown doesn't mean telling people to die for the economy - it's the Capitalist system which does that virus or not. Don't be fooled by their early rhetoric of solidarity - the lockdown brigade have no idea.

Communist
Dear Workers,

Dear Workers,

We want a revolution, we're prepared to face the bullets and truncheons of the state for a new world, but there's a virus out there so we'll have to postpone that and cower indoors instead ;)

Tagore2
Personally, I thought that

Personally, I thought that the new authoritarian era would rather begin at the time of peak oil. Finally, it started much earlier for an insignificant reason: a new epidemic that is mostly killing the elderly in countries with high life expectancies. That is, an epidemic that does not directly change the progression of global life expectancy. If the number of people dying of hunger or infectious diseases increases, it will be because of containment, and not because of covid itself.

Political authoritarianism is stochastic (chaotic), that is, it is difficult to predict the future in the medium term, but paradoxically, it is easier to predict it in the short term and in the long term.

  • In the short term (2021), the current situation is expected to continue for some time.
  • In the long term (2021-2030), capitalism will start to deplete essential mineral resources. We should reach peak oil production this decade.
  • In the medium term, perhaps the "health" crisis - which is in fact an administrative, political and economic crisis - will subside within 2-3 years; or it will drag on and be immediately followed by a new crisis, energy or other. Very difficult to say.

What is important is the trend, is the stochastic multiplication and worsening of crises, with the cataclysmic tidal wave coming in perspective: the depletion of raw materials, or rather peaks in production.

This, whatever the management, happens to us, with all the foreseeable economic, political and military consequences.

Undoubtedly this epidemic should be understood as a test of medium intensity before the great upheaval.

I hope that the ICC will rise to the occasion, that is to say, it will stand up, because for the moment it is in its little shoes.

The ICC must wake up, because the crises to come will be even worse than this one. Communists must use the present crisis to unite the proletariat against the state, and in particular against its irrational, paranoid and authoritarian pseudo-sanitary measures. And for that, the Communists must be neither irrational, nor paranoid, nor authoritarian (masks, confinement, compulsory vaccines…).

Tagore2
Getting back to anti-covid

Getting back to anti-covid vaccines, here is what Peter Doshi, associate editor at the British Medical Journal writes:

Quote:

None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.

[…]

Hospital admissions and deaths from covid-19 are simply too uncommon in the population being studied for an effective vaccine to demonstrate statistically significant differences in a trial of 30 000 people. The same is true of its ability to save lives or prevent transmission: the trials are not designed to find out.

[…]

History shows many examples of serious adverse events from vaccines brought to market in periods of enormous pressure and expectation. There were contaminated polio vaccines in 1955, cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome in recipients of flu vaccines in 1976, and narcolepsy linked to one brand of influenza vaccine in 2009.

[…]

“Finding severe rare adverse events will require the study of tens of thousands of patients, but this requirement will not be met by early adoption of a product that has not completed its full trial evaluation,” Harvard drug policy researchers Jerry Avorn and Aaron Kesselheim recently wrote in JAMA.

Will covid-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us

To date, no scientific studies on the new vaccines have been published. Neither the research protocol, nor the full results, nor the side effects. All we have are press releases from the vaccine producers themselves. Although the phrase has connotations, it is literally about secret experiments and occult science. When will the data be released? Soon, we are told, the data will first be sent to government agencies who will secretly analyze it. The general public and scientists will be briefed later. But when ? After the European Union and the United States have bought 8 billion euros worth of vaccines? After everyone is faced with a fait accompli, contracts signed, as with Gilead's ineffective and toxic remdesivir?

It all smells bad!

Tagore2
Read the Pfizer press release

Read the Pfizer press release!

Quote:

Data demonstrate vaccine was well tolerated across all populations with over 43,000 participants enrolled; no serious safety concerns observed; the only Grade 3 adverse event greater than 2% in frequency was fatigue at 3.8% and headache at 2.0%

PFIZER AND BIONTECH CONCLUDE PHASE 3 STUDY OF COVID-19 VACCINE CANDIDATE, MEETING ALL PRIMARY EFFICACY ENDPOINTS

No serious safety concerns observed! But do you know what a grade 3 side effect means?

Quote:

Grade

CTC/CTCAE are the foundation of the CTEP, NCI Guidelines: Adverse Event Reporting Requirements for CTEP, NCI Investigational Agents. Grade is an essential element of the Guidelines and, in general, relates to seriousness for the purposes of regulatory reporting to CTEP as follows: 

  • 0 No adverse event or within normal limits
  • 1 Mild adverse event (minor; no specific medical intervention; asymptomatic laboratory findings only, radiographic findings only; marginal clinical relevance)
  • 2 Moderate adverse event (minimal intervention; local intervention; noninvasive intervention [packing, cautery])
  • 3 Severe and undesirable adverse event (significant symptoms requiring hospitalization or invasive intervention; transfusion; elective interventional radiological procedure; therapeutic endoscopy or operation)
  • 4 Life-threatening or disabling adverse event (complicated by acute, life-threatening metabolic or cardiovascular complications such as circulatory failure, hemorrhage, sepsis. Life-threatening physiologic consequences; need for intensive care or emergent invasive procedure; emergent interventional radiological procedure, therapeutic endoscopy or operation)
  • 5 Fatal adverse event 

CTEP, NCI GUIDELINES: ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

What Pfizer is simply telling us is that there are several grade 3 side effects that are more than 2% prevalent, including one at 3.8%. A grade 3 side effect means that even if it does not directly threaten life, it requires hospitalization or invasive intervention. What is "fatigue" in grade 3? Narcolepsy? What is "headache" in grade 3? A headache requiring opioids? At the very least, a grade 3 side effect will require several days of sick leave.

Do the math. ~4% of people vaccinated will have severe side effects, requiring sick leave or even hospitalization.

Suppose 10 million people are vaccinated in France or the UK. This represents 400,000 people on sick leave, part of which will be sent to hospital. Is this how the capitalist state plans to reduce the burden on hospitals?

And we have yet to talk about the grade 4 and 5 side effects, which are life threatening, cause disability or death. Certain side effects, such as narcolepsy, autoimmune diseases, or the paradoxical weakening of the immune system in the face of certain diseases, can take years to appear.

Do you understand why it takes years to develop and above all properly test a new vaccine? Why is launching a vaccination campaign with a vaccine developed in less than a year pure madness?

This is all crazy.

Communist
Conspiracy theorists

Tagore - Big up for coming with the information as per. Lately I've been wondering if there are elements amongst the 'conspiracy theorists' who might overlap with some of our views. They talk about the 'deep state' - well what's that other than the recognition that the state is not the same thing as the elected government representatives.

The NWO stuff is a bit disconcerting, but what is meant when they say this? Often it's just a pejorative term for the worlds biggest capitalists.

And as much as I detest the likes of Trump, often their critique of the authoritarian centre does expose the hypocrises in their positions

 

Tagore2 wrote:

Personally, I thought that the new authoritarian era would rather begin at the time of peak oil. Finally, it started much earlier for an insignificant reason: a new epidemic that is mostly killing the elderly in countries with high life expectancies. That is, an epidemic that does not directly change the progression of global life expectancy. If the number of people dying of hunger or infectious diseases increases, it will be because of containment, and not because of covid itself.

Political authoritarianism is stochastic (chaotic), that is, it is difficult to predict the future in the medium term, but paradoxically, it is easier to predict it in the short term and in the long term.

  • In the short term (2021), the current situation is expected to continue for some time.
  • In the long term (2021-2030), capitalism will start to deplete essential mineral resources. We should reach peak oil production this decade.
  • In the medium term, perhaps the "health" crisis - which is in fact an administrative, political and economic crisis - will subside within 2-3 years; or it will drag on and be immediately followed by a new crisis, energy or other. Very difficult to say.

What is important is the trend, is the stochastic multiplication and worsening of crises, with the cataclysmic tidal wave coming in perspective: the depletion of raw materials, or rather peaks in production.

This, whatever the management, happens to us, with all the foreseeable economic, political and military consequences.

Undoubtedly this epidemic should be understood as a test of medium intensity before the great upheaval.

I hope that the ICC will rise to the occasion, that is to say, it will stand up, because for the moment it is in its little shoes.

The ICC must wake up, because the crises to come will be even worse than this one. Communists must use the present crisis to unite the proletariat against the state, and in particular against its irrational, paranoid and authoritarian pseudo-sanitary measures. And for that, the Communists must be neither irrational, nor paranoid, nor authoritarian (masks, confinement, compulsory vaccines…).

Communist
Anti Lockdown demo in East London

https://twitter.com/StandUpX2/status/1335282195678846979

See above for a link to a very short video of a speaker at the anti-Lockdown rally. Seeing and hearing this, I really do strongly believe that what we're seeing is the proletariat fighting back in defence of it's living standards (regardless of the political positions of the formal organisation Stand Up X). 

What does everyone think? [Not just Tagore :) ]

Tagore2
Benefit/harm balance of the Pfizer vaccine

Pfizer has just published a rather incomplete document which nevertheless gives a first overview of the benefit / harm balance of its vaccine.

Prejudice

=======

Local reactions

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

in 16-55 year olds:

~ 80% of people receiving the vaccine experienced pain during the injections including:

50% mild pain,

30% moderate pain,

~ 1% severe pain.

~ 13% of people receiving placebo experienced pain during injections including:

13% mild pain.

The pain is slightly lower in those over 55 and under 16 (60-70%). The breakdown between mild, moderate and severe pain is similar.

Conclusion: the injection is painful.

 

Systemic events

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

Systemic events are always more elevated in the vaccine group than in the placebo group.

Systemic events were elevated in the vaccine (up to ~ 60%) and placebo (up to ~ 33%) groups, presumably due to a nocebo effect.

There are still systemic events that are not very sensitive to the placebo / nocebo effect, such as fever, which was quite high in the vaccine group (11-16%), and almost zero in the placebo group (0-1%) .

Overall, the systemic events are flu-like symptoms: fever, fatigue, headache, chills, diarrhea, muscle pain, joint pain.

Notably, all systemic events were more frequent after the second vaccine injection, compared to the first:

Quote:

fever (2.7% vs 13.6%), fatigue (41.5% vs 55.5%), headache (34.5% vs 46.1%), chills (10.6% vs 29.6%), muscle pain (18.0% vs 33.5%), and joint pain (9.9% vs 20.5%). Diarrhea and vomiting frequencies were generally similar. Overall, the frequency of any severe systemic event after Dose 1 was ≤0.9%. After Dose 2, severe systemic events had frequencies of <2% with the exception after Dose 2 of fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%).

Severe fever (>38.9°C to 40.0°C) was reported in the BNT162b2 group after Dose 1 for 0.2% and after Dose 2 for 0.8%, and in the placebo group after Dose 1 for 0.1% and after Dose 2 for 0.1%. Grade 4 fever (>40.0°C) was reported for 2 participants in each of the BNT162b2 and placebo groups.

The worsening of systemic events during the second injection raises questions. This suggests that successive injections could sensitize the body to subsequent vaccinations or contamination, as is the case with the dengue vaccine. The effects of Pfizer's vaccine on long-term immunity should be carefully monitored.

In addition, the number of severe systemic events is not negligible: ~1% usually after the first dose; ~4% for fatigue, 2% for headache, ~1% for fever after the second dose. Recall that, according to the CTEP definition, a severe event, even if it does not threaten life, requires either hospitalization or invasive intervention. In any case, a more or less long stoppage of work. If the state vaccinates millions of people, that represents tens of thousands of sick leave. Fever over 40 ° C is extremely rare and even in the vaccine and placebo groups. It is likely not due to the injections.

Finally, all mild or moderate systemic events are frequent to very frequent, which means that the vaccination will be difficult.

 

Adverse events

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

% of Subjects Reporting at Least 1 Adverse Event From Dose 1 to 1 Month After Dose 2 – ~38000 Subjects for Phase 2/3 Analysis – Safety Population

Adverse Event

Any event:

Vaccine: 27.0 %

Placebo: 12.5 %

Related:

Vaccine: 20.8 %

Placebo: 5.1 %

Severe:

Vaccine: 1.2 %

Placebo: 0.6 %

Life-threatening:

Vaccine: 0.1 %

Placebo: 0.1 %

There were 6 deaths during the study, which do not appear to be related to treatment.

There were two cases of severe pseudo-covid in the vaccine group, with lung damage, i.e. patients who had the same symptoms as covid-19, without being positive for sars-cov-2. This suggests that the vaccine could cause pseudo-covid, with the same symptoms as the original disease, including severe forms, but without a positive PCR test. This possible side effect  should be watched carefully. [add 2020-12-19: source is this document, p. 41, "Suspected COVID-19 Cases"]

 

Benefit

=====

After the first dose of vaccine and throughout the follow-up, 0.23% of people were infected.

After the first dose of placebo and throughout the follow-up, 1.29% of people were infected.

The actual relative efficacy of the vaccine is therefore 82%. The vaccine is 94.8% effective only in people who have not been infected between the two doses and after a week after the second dose.

However, the absolute medical service is weak. The probability of being infected goes from 1.29% to 0.23%, that is to say that there is a 1% less chance of being infected, during the follow-up period (2 months). Protection beyond 2 months is unknown.

The vaccine is effective among those at risk.

Among those who received both doses, there were 57/1,000,000 severe covid in the vaccine group and 171/1,000,000 in the placebo group (66.4% efficacy).

The difference is not statistically significant (95% Cie: -125.5 – 96.3).

Among those who received at least the first dose, there were 47/1,000,000 severe covid in the vaccine group and 423/1,000,000 in the placebo group (88.9% efficacy).

The difference is statistically significant (95% Cie: 20.1 – 99.7).

 

Conclusion

========

Within 2 months, the probability of being infected with Sars-CoV-2 is low (~ 1.29%).

Almost all contaminations are asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic, severe cases are rare (~ 0.04%).

The protection of the vaccine in the medium to long term is unknown.

The effect on contagiousness is unknown.

The long-term effects of RNA vaccine (gene therapy) in humans are unknown.

Side effects of the vaccine are very common, some of which are severe: 1% for fever, 2% for headache and 4% for fatigue.

The likelihood of having severe side effects from the vaccine is much greater than the likelihood of having a severe form of covid-19. The hypothesis that the vaccine can cause, in some cases, a pseudo-covid as severe as an actual covid is not ruled out.

However, the vaccine appears to be effective in protecting against covid, including severe covid, at least in the short term. The relative efficacy of the vaccine is notable (~ 80%).

But the absolute medical benefit is small (reduction of 1% from an original probability of 1.3%), while the side effects are numerous and frequent (> 60% in general, ~4% for severe side effects).

There were no deaths from covid, so the vaccine's efficacy in reducing case fatality could not be assessed.

Long term side effects are unknown.

-

The vaccine is not at all suitable for the general population, where it causes much more morbidity than it prevents.

The vaccine could potentially be useful in vulnerable populations, although vulnerable populations are also more susceptible to side effects, which could attenuate, nullifies or even reverse the results of the vaccine (i.e. overall the vaccine would do more bad than good).

-

In summary :

The vaccine is effective, at least in the short term.

The benefit/harm balance is clearly unfavorable, at least in the general population.

Communist
Personal choice

Tagore - Do you see yourself taking it at any point? I'm 100% anti-lockdown but a vaccine-sceptic rather than anti-vaccine. If, in 10 years time, it became clear it was as safe as other established vaccines, there's a small chance I'd consider taking it then. But even then, if it had been around for 10 successful years wouldn't the virus be nearly gone by that point?

No matter how much I try to rationalise and see both points of view, something still feels deeply wrong about the whole thing.

Tagore2 wrote:

Pfizer has just published a rather incomplete document which nevertheless gives a first overview of the benefit / harm balance of its vaccine.

Prejudice

=======

Local reactions

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

in 16-55 year olds:

~ 80% of people receiving the vaccine experienced pain during the injections including:

50% mild pain,

30% moderate pain,

~ 1% severe pain.

~ 13% of people receiving placebo experienced pain during injections including:

13% mild pain.

The pain is slightly lower in those over 55 and under 16 (60-70%). The breakdown between mild, moderate and severe pain is similar.

Conclusion: the injection is painful.

 

Systemic events

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

Systemic events are always more elevated in the vaccine group than in the placebo group.

Systemic events were elevated in the vaccine (up to ~ 60%) and placebo (up to ~ 33%) groups, presumably due to a nocebo effect.

There are still systemic events that are not very sensitive to the placebo / nocebo effect, such as fever, which was quite high in the vaccine group (11-16%), and almost zero in the placebo group (0-1%) .

Overall, the systemic events are flu-like symptoms: fever, fatigue, headache, chills, diarrhea, muscle pain, joint pain.

Notably, all systemic events were more frequent after the second vaccine injection, compared to the first:

 

Quote:

fever (2.7% vs 13.6%), fatigue (41.5% vs 55.5%), headache (34.5% vs 46.1%), chills (10.6% vs 29.6%), muscle pain (18.0% vs 33.5%), and joint pain (9.9% vs 20.5%). Diarrhea and vomiting frequencies were generally similar. Overall, the frequency of any severe systemic event after Dose 1 was ≤0.9%. After Dose 2, severe systemic events had frequencies of <2% with the exception after Dose 2 of fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%).

Severe fever (>38.9°C to 40.0°C) was reported in the BNT162b2 group after Dose 1 for 0.2% and after Dose 2 for 0.8%, and in the placebo group after Dose 1 for 0.1% and after Dose 2 for 0.1%. Grade 4 fever (>40.0°C) was reported for 2 participants in each of the BNT162b2 and placebo groups.

 

The worsening of systemic events during the second injection raises questions. This suggests that successive injections could sensitize the body to subsequent vaccinations or contamination, as is the case with the dengue vaccine. The effects of Pfizer's vaccine on long-term immunity should be carefully monitored.

In addition, the number of severe systemic events is not negligible: ~1% usually after the first dose; ~4% for fatigue, 2% for headache, ~1% for fever after the second dose. Recall that, according to the CTEP definition, a severe event, even if it does not threaten life, requires either hospitalization or invasive intervention. In any case, a more or less long stoppage of work. If the state vaccinates millions of people, that represents tens of thousands of sick leave. Fever over 40 ° C is extremely rare and even in the vaccine and placebo groups. It is likely not due to the injections.

Finally, all mild or moderate systemic events are frequent to very frequent, which means that the vaccination will be difficult.

 

Adverse events

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

% of Subjects Reporting at Least 1 Adverse Event From Dose 1 to 1 Month After Dose 2 – ~38000 Subjects for Phase 2/3 Analysis – Safety Population

Adverse Event

Any event:

Vaccine: 27.0 %

Placebo: 12.5 %

Related:

Vaccine: 20.8 %

Placebo: 5.1 %

Severe:

Vaccine: 1.2 %

Placebo: 0.6 %

Life-threatening:

Vaccine: 0.1 %

Placebo: 0.1 %

There were 6 deaths during the study, which do not appear to be related to treatment.

There were two cases of severe pseudo-covid in the vaccine group, with lung damage, i.e. patients who had the same symptoms as covid-19, without being positive for sars-cov-2. This suggests that the vaccine could cause pseudo-covid, with the same symptoms as the original disease, including severe forms, but without a positive PCR test. This possible side effect should be watched carefully.

 

Benefit

=====

After the first dose of vaccine and throughout the follow-up, 0.23% of people were infected.

After the first dose of placebo and throughout the follow-up, 1.29% of people were infected.

The actual relative efficacy of the vaccine is therefore 82%. The vaccine is 94.8% effective only in people who have not been infected between the two doses and after a week after the second dose.

However, the absolute medical service is weak. The probability of being infected goes from 1.29% to 0.23%, that is to say that there is a 1% less chance of being infected, during the follow-up period (2 months). Protection beyond 2 months is unknown.

The vaccine is effective among those at risk.

Among those who received both doses, there were 57/1,000,000 severe covid in the vaccine group and 171/1,000,000 in the placebo group (66.4% efficacy).

The difference is not statistically significant (95% Cie: -125.5 – 96.3).

Among those who received at least the first dose, there were 47/1,000,000 severe covid in the vaccine group and 423/1,000,000 in the placebo group (88.9% efficacy).

The difference is statistically significant (95% Cie: 20.1 – 99.7).

 

Conclusion

========

Within 2 months, the probability of being infected with Sars-CoV-2 is low (~ 1.29%).

Almost all contaminations are asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic, severe cases are rare (~ 0.04%).

The protection of the vaccine in the medium to long term is unknown.

The effect on contagiousness is unknown.

The long-term effects of RNA vaccine (gene therapy) in humans are unknown.

Side effects of the vaccine are very common, some of which are severe: 1% for fever, 2% for headache and 4% for fatigue.

The likelihood of having severe side effects from the vaccine is much greater than the likelihood of having a severe form of covid-19. The hypothesis that the vaccine can cause, in some cases, a pseudo-covid as severe as an actual covid is not ruled out.

However, the vaccine appears to be effective in protecting against covid, including severe covid, at least in the short term. The relative efficacy of the vaccine is notable (~ 80%).

But the absolute medical benefit is small (reduction of 1% from an original probability of 1.3%), while the side effects are numerous and frequent (> 60% in general, ~4% for severe side effects).

There were no deaths from covid, so the vaccine's efficacy in reducing case fatality could not be assessed.

Long term side effects are unknown.

-

The vaccine is not at all suitable for the general population, where it causes much more morbidity than it prevents.

The vaccine could potentially be useful in vulnerable populations, although vulnerable populations are also more susceptible to side effects, which could attenuate, nullifies or even reverse the results of the vaccine (i.e. overall the vaccine would do more bad than good).

-

In summary :

The vaccine is effective, at least in the short term.

The benefit/harm balance is clearly unfavorable, at least in the general population.

Tagore2
Pfizer's vaccine? At no

Pfizer's vaccine? At no moment. At the present state of knowledge, according to figures from Pfizer themselves, the risk of severe side effects is greater than that of catching the virus. So why get vaccinated? In addition, there are no figures on whether the vaccine will reduce the risk of going into intensive care or of death. Finally, there are other side effects that are not yet known, due to the newness of the vaccine. Unanticipated and rare, but severe, side effects are already being discovered in the UK, such as allergic reactions or facial paralysis.

More importantly, there are other public health strategies besides vaccination.

  1. Prevention. We know, for example, that maintaining a good level of vitamin D is associated with a reduction in the risk of contracting the virus by ~ 80%, compared to people who are deficient. This is the same order of magnitude as the vaccine itself, but without any side effects.
  2. Prophylaxis. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have been shown to have a prophylactic effect, 90-100% protection for ivermectin, with fewer side effects than the vaccine.

Prevention and prophylaxis have a similar goal to the vaccines: to prevent disease from occurring. If these two means achieve the same goal, but with fewer side effects, why choose the vaccine? Not to mention the fact that a good portion of the population is already partially or fully immune due to cross-immunity, asymptomatic infections and previous vaccinations, such as MMR, which also appear to have an effect on covid-19.

The state, the media and the soldiers in the pharmaceutical industry are trying to lock us into a false alternative: vaccine or containment. In reality, there are many other strategies. A new vaccine is unlikely to even "save" us from covid-19: in all of medical history, for emerging diseases, this has never happened.

Moreover, when you have, in prevention, a reduction of ~ 80% of contaminations with vitamin D at right level, and in prophylaxis, a reduction of 90-100% with ivermectin, one wonders what would be the place of a new vaccine in a rational public health strategy.

Tagore2
The main reason people get

The main reason people get the virus and get sick is that they are in poor health or very old.

This epidemic is a warning against our harmful way of life.

The severe disease is characterized by a hyper-inflammatory reaction. However, our diet is rich in pro-inflammatory foods such as seed oils or sugar.

It is characterized by vitamin D deficiencies. However, we expose ourselves too little to the sun during the year (and too much during the summer).

Physical inactivity, metabolic diseases, cenescence, consumption of harmful products, chronic inflammation...

Before you consider how to treat sick people or find a vaccine, ask yourself why some populations don't get sick. So you will find good public health policy, and not just for covid.

Communist
Tagore2 wrote:

Tagore2 wrote:

The state, media and the soldiers in the pharmaceutical industry are trying to lock us into a false alternative: vaccine or containment. In reality, there are many other strategies. A new vaccine is unlikely to even "save" us from covid-19: in all of medical history, for emerging diseases, this has never happened.

Moreover, when you have, in prevention, a reduction of ~ 80% of contaminations with vitamin D at right level, and in prophylaxis, a reduction of 90-100% with ivermectin, one wonders what would be the place of a new vaccine in a rational public health strategy.

It's just pure class war - the big bourgeoisie vs everyone else. Thought I'd share a little anecdote - On Saturday, I decided to check out a very small anti-lockdown demo in London, on my way down there I stumbled on some kind of a Cuban solidarity demo outside the Brazilian embassy. I spoke to some people there from the so called 'Revolutionary Communist Group' - none of them could see anything wrong with having a whole year where we've all been watching the news waiting to see when and under what circumstances the government will allow us to leave our houses. I told them that instead of being obsessed with their role as some kind of 'vanguard' they should start listening to the proletariat who they mythologise so much. It was all very amicable, but ultimately it felt like talking to a brick wall.

Communist
Waiting on the ICC

I'm not a member of the ICC so ultimately it's up to you folks to decide your own positions. But should the ICC come out clearly, without equivication, against this current insanity you would win so many admirers and take this current struggle out of the hands of the conspiracy theorists and into the hands of the working class people who are so so sick of this. Come on ICC! We're waiting for your leadership...

jaycee
I agree that this is in many

I agree that this is in many ways a 'dress-rehersal' for the later and far more severe crises on the horizon; the degree to which the virus is being exagerated is a very difficult question. I also think its a problem that the bourgeoisie has managed to impose a 'lockdown' on society and the only frame to oppose it has been the right-wing and the conspiracy theorists. The ways in which the bourgeosie will and are using this crisis to reshape the economy and train the population is a key question.

Certainly surveilance will increase; as will atomisation and attacks on living standards. They have also managed to get through a massive stimulus package that they hope will keep the economy from collapsing (how many times they can rely on this tactic will probably be seen in the near future) as well as getting people (especially the young) used to the idea of lockdowns more generally.

Tagore: how do you see that a revolutionary organisation should respond in the present situation? I am a close sympathiser of the ICC rarher than a member btw

Communist
Dissent=Hate?!

So today in the UK Parliament they are debating how to compel social media to suppress 'anti-vax content', all being pushed by the same people who are all about 'ending digital hate' - DISSENT IS NOT HATRED.

Ivermectin and possibly other drugs too have shown to be effective against the virus. This is all a scam for big pharma to make more money, and the state to become ever more repressive.

Forumteam
personal autonomy or class autonomy?

 

Comrades may have their reservations about the national, regional or local lockdown measures imposed by the bourgeois state. (See our article “Population lockdown: the bourgeois state shows its brutality”). And it is quite understandable that comrades have a critical stand towards leftist groups who support and embrace the “authoritarian” measures of the bourgeois state. We also see that comrades have their reservations about the vaccines and the vaccination program as it is unfolding in the various countries.

Nevertheless the Forumteam wants to make some points concerning certain views on this thread. Some of our comrades have medical or healthcare qualifications and as an organisation we certainly think that this virus is indeed a deadly disease engendered by the decomposition of capitalism, but it's not our role as an organisation to offer expert medical advice to the working class. Therefore we will not address the specific medical aspects in the exchange of views on this thread.

We think that Tagore2 puts forward some interesting elements, especially in his post #8, where he quotes Peter Doshi, associate editor at the British Medical Journal, about the risks of vaccination programs that are implemented in a short period, without a responsible trial period. As we ourselves wrote: “This sprint to find a vaccine and a "miracle remedy" against Covid-19 is not without tragic consequences for the rest of world health: throughout, researchers and virologists warn against the dangers of this sudden precipitation” (“War of the vaccines: Capitalism is an obstacle to the discovery of a treatment”) Therefore we share the conclusion of the comrade in post #4 that “a vaccination program should never be decided in a rush and in fear. Any immunization program has potential benefits and harms, which must be carefully assessed before the campaign is launched.” However there are other elements in the position of the comrade that we do not accept and which are to say the least controversial. For instance his statement that “if the vaccine has not been tested for at least 5 years (…) choosing the strategy of a vaccination campaign is worse than an adventure, it’s just madness”. Here Tagore2 expresses a scepticism about medical science, which is really over the top.

Science is a real achievement for humanity. The discoveries of Galileo, Darwin, Pasteur, Einstein, etc. belong to the most important acquisitions of human civilization. Marx and Engels considered the natural sciences as an important aspect of the development of a materialist view of the world. In his Notebooks Trotsky even included a discussion of Freud and psychoanalysis, to which he displayed a great deal of sympathetic, if critical, appreciation throughout his life. And in the field of medical science, the bourgeoisie has certainly made a significant progress. Communists do not simply throw this overboard and do certainly not exchange it for irrational, pseudo-scientific theories, which certain posts in this thread tend to do. In post #1 Communist writes for instance that he is “not kind of conspiracist”. But in post #10 the same Communist writes that he is wondering “if there are elements amongst the ‘conspiracy theorists’ who might overlap with some of our views”. Most of the conspiracy theories contain a grain of truth, and to a certain extent they do overlap with reality, as for instance the theory “that there exists a ‘deep state’ which operates behind the façade of democracy” (“The fuel for conspiracy theories is the decomposition of capitalism”). But to imply that elements of such a theory are compatible with certain communist positions is quite another thing and is bending the stick too far.

In post #7 Tagore2 tells us that “communists must use the present crisis to unite the proletariat against the state, and in particular against its irrational, paranoid and authoritarian pseudo-sanitary measures”. We agree with the comrade that the communists must denounce the brutal measures of the bourgeoisie as well as each irrational approach of the bourgeoisie in the fight against the spreading of the virus. But the comrade seems to consider the authoritarian lockdown measures as a pure expression of the irrational and paranoid view of the bourgeoisie, almost as if the virus was no more than a phantom conjured up by bourgeois propaganda, a view we definitely don’t accept. In another thread “Corona Virus: More evidence that capitalism has become a danger to humanity” the comrade defends a similar position: “The government uses the Covid-19 to spread fear, irrationality and dictatorship”. But this is not the fundamental motive behind the lock-down, on the contrary. The governments are compelled to do everything they can to keep production running. And paranoia and fear will not be very helpful in preventing a serious downturn in the production. What we see is that the ruling class tries to avoid the saturation of hospitals by limiting social and family life and by sacrificing the economic activity of the middle classes (small businesses, crafts...). It simply can’t allow the health of the workforce to be massively affected. Preventing the collapse of health care and the economy is therefore the number one priority for the bourgeoisie in the face of the Covid-19 crisis.

A trap that revolutionaries must also avoid is the demand for personal autonomy, for such a demand will inevitably “find itself caught in a no-man’s-land [typically for the petit bourgeoisie] between two alternatives: the political determination of Marxism on the one hand and the hostile political power of the bourgeoisie, and those who have put themselves at the latter’s service, on the other.” (“In defence of the ICC and Marxist revolutionary organization; reply to an ex-member”) This concerns in particular post #1 of Communist, where he writes that compulsory vaccination is “an all-out assault on personal autonomy” and that “the right to go about my life without having every aspect of it micromanaged is sacred”. In his post the comrade is looking for personal autonomy and not class autonomy; but by putting the personal autonomy against the authoritarian nature of the state in an abstract way the class antagonism is obscured. Therefore this post of the comrade tends to align with populist protests so widely supported by petty bourgeois layers in society implying, as has been described in a recent study of the University of Amsterdam, “the most unlikely of coalitions - from anarchists and natural health proponents to anti-vaxxers and libertarians of all stripes (from the radical-ecological to the right-nativist) - all mobilizing around a purported defense of ‘personal freedoms’ and ‘individual rights’.” (“‘Individual sovereignty’ in pandemic times – A contradiction in terms?”)

The terrain of the working class is the fight against the attacks on its material living conditions, the conditions of the exploitation of its labour power, as we have explained in our press. In the particular case of the Covid-19 pandemic we have seen the protest of “front-line” personnel (hospital workers, supermarket cashiers, etc.) against the state’s willingness to sacrifice them on the altar of the defence of national capital. But the protests against the lockdown measures, such as the demos in Berlin and the riots in Naples, are not the terrain where the proletariat develops its struggle for the defence of its living conditions. In post #3 Communist is right “that the resistance to lockdown/vaccines has its origins in the ruination of small business” and certainly not in the proletariat. Individual workers may participate in these protests, but in post #5 Communist makes a misjudgement when he sees behind the protest against the lockdown “the class war”, and that in these demos “the proletariat [is] fighting back in defence of its living standards”. In post #7 Tagore2 tells us that the ICC “must use the present crisis to unite the proletariat against the state, and in particular against its irrational, paranoid and authoritarian pseudo-sanitary measures. In post #17 Communist makes an appeal to the ICC “to take this current struggle out of the hands of the conspiracy theorists and into the hands of the working class people”. Both comrades show that they do not understand that the struggle for the “the restoration of fundamental rights” takes place on a terrain that is a dangerous trap for the proletarian struggle.

Leaving aside the fact that a small group like the ICC is not able to “take the leadership” even of a real working class struggle, the basic problem is that the anti-lock down protests are not on a class terrain and can only be a trap for the workers drawn into them. We repeat: the working class struggle to defend itself collectively through strikes and protests around class demands has, to a certain extent continued during the pandemic, for example among health workers, airline workers and others. Currently less spectacular no doubt than the anti-mask “pro-freedom” demonstrations but the only basis for building a response to the massive attacks on our living standards that lie ahead.

 

 

 

 

Tagore2
One scientific error, one political error

In its response, the ICC makes two essential errors: one scientific, one political.

The scientific error is that, all other things being equal, there is no statistical association between the severity of health dictatorship measures and the death rate. If these measures were useful in any way, countries using them would, other things being equal, have a lower death rate. This is not the case (see fig. 2, "Original stringency index").

I know there are numerical simulations produced in March and April that the lockdown has saved thousands, if not millions of lives. These simulations are drastically wrong for two reasons:

Experimentally, their predictions did not come true. The Ferguson’s model predicted 96,000 deaths in Sweden during the first epidemic, if the country did not lockdown. Sweden did not lockdown. There was less than 6000 deaths. A model which lends to massive errors of this kind cannot be considered reliable.

Theoretically, these models are too sensitive to initial conditions (Butterfly effect). Unlike the simulation of the trajectory of a rifle bullet, whose number of parameters is limited and the approximation in the initial parameters does not have much effect on the final result, the simulation of a pandemic requires taking into account a considerable number of parameters, the majority of which are unknown, the relative importance of which is unknown, the interdependence of which is unknown, and of which a tiny variation at the beginning is likely to significantly alter the final result. A fortiori, we still have very little epidemiological knowledge about covid-19, which is, let us remember, a new disease. We don't even know the seasonality of the virus. The attempt to simulate the evolution of a chaotic and unknown system is outright delusion.

Finally, between observation and simulation, two philosophical conceptions clash. One is that of materialist science which relies on objective facts, looks for correlations before deciding on a possible causality. The other is that of scientistic mysticism, mathemagical megalomania, which believes it can reinvent the world through digital simulations. On the one hand we have Poincaré who recognizes chaotic systems with the problem of the three bodies. On the other hand, we have the genius of Laplace, who believes he can discover all of the past, all of the present and all of the future only with mathematical formulas.

The political error is that the proletariat in poor countries has suffered enormously from lockdown and has revolted against it.

In Africa and India, there have been labor riots against the lockdown.

In Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Kenya, workers risk starving to death if the state puts them out of work. It is a real lockout, an "employers' strike", ruthlessly organized by the state. The police clubbed or shot them to enforce the lockdown. There are deaths.

When the ICC claims that the anti-lockdown movement is not proletarian, it only cites examples from Western Europe. More generally, he could only cite examples from rich countries.

Countries where people receive benefits when they are confined.

Where there is a network of well organized and supplied supermarkets.

Where it is possible to receive at home delivery and care support after ordering on the internet or by phone.

Where there is running water, electricity and internet.

Where there is a significant proportion of elderly and disabled people living on benefits, who are both more at risk from covid and less impacted by lockdown.

So yes, there is a social and economic determination against lockdown, but it is not what the ICC claims.

The position of the ICC illustrates its social composition: if the ICC had African or Indian proletarian sections, it would have written articles:

On the interruption of vaccination campaigns in many countries, endangering the lives of millions of children, while children rarely catch covid, melts into mild forms and do not transmit it.

On stopping treatment for other diseases, including malaria and AIDS, endangering the lives of millions of other proletarians and poor peasants.

On the flight out of the cities, driven by hunger, of millions of proletarians, and on the temporary internment of thousands of them in concentration camps in India.

On mass unemployment and the misery caused by lockdown.

On police violence against the unemployed who left to seek work, without money or food, ranging from beatings to murder.

On popular revolts against lockdown. Professor Souleymane, for example, testified to the impossibility of enforcing lockdown in Senegal - which did not generate any epidemic recruits as some had predicted.

In a political organization, the social composition is everything. If the ICC had African or Indian proletarian sections, it would never have made these Western Euro-centric mistakes.

Alf
Class movements against the lock down?

Tagore: before answering your accusation that our view of the anti-lockdown protests is essentially eurocentrist, it would be useful if you could supply some concrete examples of movements against the lock-downs which, in your opinion, have a proletarian character. 

Tagore2
Wikipedia article
Tagore2
Migrant workers throw stones
Tagore2
I suggest that the lockdown

I suggest that the lockdown discussion be moved to another topic.

Getting back to the Pfizer vaccine, real world data is starting to come in.

According to CDC (p. 6), in Great Britain and the United States, 18 december, there was :

  • 112,807 Registrants with recorded 1st dose,

  • 3,150 Health Impact Events (2.8%).

Health Impact Events are defined as : « unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional »

According to the Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (p. 2), in Italy, ~2.5 % of population have been contaminated during the first epidemic, with 27.3% asymptomatics and 24.7% paucisymptomatics (p. 6).

According to the Ministero de Ciencia e Innovacion (p. 1), in Spain, ~5.2% of population have been contaminated during the first epidemic, with 35% asymptomatics and 19% paucisymptomatics (p. 8).

Paucisymptomatics are “presenting few symptoms”. In some research, paucisymptomatics can be confused with asymptomatics.

According to other research, 57.2% of sars-cov-2 positive patients are asymptomatic (Shakiba, 2020), or 76.5% (Petersen, 2020).

That is, excluding ~50% of asymptomatics or paucisymptomatics:

  • ~1.25% sick people in Italy,

  • ~2.6% sick people in Spain.

However, so far, the vaccine has caused at least 2.8% of adverse effects, requiring care from doctor, sick leave or equivalent disability.

Conclusion: even taking some of the most favorable hypotheses for the vaccine, and the most unfavorable for the disease, the vaccine benefit-harm balance is negative, at least with regard to the data currently known.

No rational society would disseminate such a vaccine in the population, most likely human experimentation with this vaccine would be stopped, and the pharmaceutical industry would be asked to develop a new, safer vaccine.

--

Petersen I, Phillips A. Three Quarters of People with SARS-CoV-2 Infection are Asymptomatic: Analysis of English Household Survey Data. Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;Volume 12:1039-1043. doi:10.2147/clep.s276825

Shakiba M, Nazemipour M, Heidarzadeh A, Mansournia MA. Prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection using a seroepidemiological survey. Epidemiology and Infection. Published online November 13, 2020:1-7. doi:10.1017/s0950268820002745

Tagore2
France, 2020

Derisory mortality among those under 65 in France:

  • 39 deaths per million inhabitants, including 71% of people with know co-morbidities.

Is the ICC still not ashamed of having given in to panic?

Table 7, p. 37. (~53 millions inhabitants under 65 in France)

COVID-19 : point épidémiologique du 31 décembre 2020

Kamerling
Protests in India and Africa

In his post #21 Tagore2 says that the ForumTeam has not only made a scientific error but also a political error. With regard to the medical aspect of of the pandemic I endorse the post of the ForumTeam: “Some comrades have medical or healthcare qualifications and as an organisation we certainly think that this virus is indeed a deadly disease engendered by the decomposition of capitalism, but it's not our role as an organisation to offer expert medical advice to the working class.”

Therefore I restrict my a reply to the critique of the political aspect of the pandemic where Tagore2 writes:

“When the ICC claims that the anti-lockdown movement is not proletarian, it only cites examples from Western Europe. More generally, he could only cite examples from rich countries. The political error is that the proletariat in poor countries has suffered enormously from lockdown and has revolted against it.”

As an evidence for his critique Tagore2 refers to three articles and to Wikipedia: one about the protests in Africa and three about the protests in India.

Regarding the protests in India, Wikipedia tells us that, after the nationwide lockdown in March 2020, thousands of migrants have since protested across the country, for reasons ranging from demanding transport back home, quality of food served, not being allowed to cross the border, and against government directives preventing them to walk home”. This is indeed, in a nutshell, what happened in the months between March and July in India.

I agree that the protests in India have been made by workers, migrant workers to be precise. But these protests were not against the national lockdown as such, but against the measures of the governments of the different states and unions that made it impossible for the migrant workers to return to their place of birth.

But there is another thing that needs to be clarified as well and that is the idea that each protest by the workers is by definition a proletarian struggle. This is not the case: it depends of the dynamic of such a protest and the demands that are raised. A proletarian struggle has the potential and dynamic towards the unification of the workers as a class against capitalism. In a proletarian struggle the workers raise demands that allow ever greater parts of the working class to be integrated and mobilised in one and the same struggle and the creation of the necessary organisational means to achieve this. The protests in India did not have such a potential since the demands, which were raised in these protests, went in the opposite direction: the workers demanded means to go home, to their place of birth. Thus the general tendency of their protests was not towards a mobilisation of ever greater parts of the working class, but towards a demobilisation of its class forces: a dispersal and scattering and fragmentation of the class forces, to be dissolved in the countryside

In the article about Africa, “Security forces in Africa brutalizing civilians under lockdown”, there is no mention of workers or proletarians begin part of these protests. Workers may have participated in these protests, but in any case these protests were not on a proletarian terrain either.

Tagore2
Since “the development of

Since “the development of capitalism in Russia” and even before, everyone knows that the movement of migrant workers from town to country, from country to town and from town to town constitutes one of the most powerful links the working class has with itself and with the peasantry.

These movements are also a vector of workers' organization for transport, communications, supplying and accommodation, which could be used by the party for its militants or on the occasion of a larger movement.

This knowledge has long been acquired by Marxists.

I think there is a real problem with the social composition of the ICC, which has too many professors and civil servants from developed countries.

If the ICC had sections in Africa and India made up of grassroots proletarians, living in shanty towns or moving from town to town, where there is work, I don't think the ICC would do this kind of mistake.

--

Basically, everything is in the social composition of the organization, the political discussions that we have here are only a reflection of this.

Simply recruit grassroots proletarians in Africa and India, and the ICC will spontaneously correct itself.

If you can't recruit there, maybe it's because there is a reason ?!

d-man
Die neue Zeit debate

FYI Die neue Zeit (edited by Kautsky) in 1899 gave space to the vaccine question (mainly I think it was about small pox back then), with one doctor against, and one in favour (each contribution about 20 pages in length):

Die Impffrage / von Adolf Vogt.

Professor Vogt und die Impffrage / von Siegfried Rosenfeld

There was also a piece in 1897 (so this topic was certainly alive in society): Die Reichstagskommission zur Beratung über die Aufhebung des Impfgesetzes vom 8. April 1874 / von Henrik Beckers.

I haven't read it all, but it seems a lot of arguments get repeated still today (eg profit for medical industry, preference to focus instead on improving hygiene/healthy living conditions).