What a Mess!

We have reached a point where we need a scorecard to keep track of Covid-19 vaccine mandates, immunization levels, legal actions, actions that have no apparent legal foundation, and related developments. Maybe someone has a Covid-19 bingo card handy. If so, and if they are willing to share it, then all we need is someone to call out the surprises and we can roll along with the game until someone wins with a validated “Bingo!”

Think about the evolving confusion: The federal vaccine mandate issued by news conference earlier this year drove a cascade of federal employee, federal contractor, and private sector mandates. Meanwhile, the overarching directive ignored federal law requiring a time period for review and comment on new regulations, and did not include guidelines for implementation. Lawsuits against the mandates complicated the picture, as did various protests, walkouts, and wholesale resignations. Meanwhile, Congress was exempt from the mandate, which should not come as a surprise or, therefore, count for anything on your bingo card. And the corporate media continued to shed dark on an already murky matter by confusing people who opposed the mandates with people who opposed the vaccinations, by misreporting conscientious objections, and by ignoring obvious questions (e.g., why do so many medical personnel not want the immunization?).

Add to this mess the ongoing questions about vaccines, immunizations, masking, breakthrough cases, etc. For example, a couple of weeks ago, the University of California, Berkeley had to postpone its football game with the University of Southern California. Why? Because the UC team suddenly experienced 44 breakthrough cases of Covid-19 even though the team was 99% fully immunized. Given that the virus is essentially endemic and will be with us practically forever, and given that the immunizations aim to prevent serious illness rather than infection per se, it might be easy to say that this should not have been a surprise. Yet it was a surprise, and it leaves behind a wake of questions about the effectiveness of public policies for dealing with the disease.

At this time the federal mandate appears to be stalled if not blocked by the courts, and the regulations and their guidance-less implementation are not internally consistent. Yet there is at least one more part of this mess that does not seem to have received enough attention. Our discussions with attorneys, fiduciaries, pastors, and priests are all considered privileged information under the law. What about discussions with our doctors? Don’t we have a right to consult in confidence with the doctor we trust to deal with this disease, rather than trusting our fate to an impersonal bureaucracy? Food for thought.