Vaxxed and Critical Thinking

You may skip directly to today’s Feature, or spend a few moments with Family, Friends and Faith, first!

TODAY _{in Read Through the Bible}

Faith

Thinking

(Quotes from the, slightly bizarre, mind of the Thinker In The Woods)

Our Family Artists

(Click the photo to read more about each family member)

Vaxxed and Critical Thinking

Herd immunity without herd hysteria

Bev and I recently had our annual vaccinations (flu, COVID, pneumonia).

Vaccination is a useful topic for critical thinking because it forces us to weigh risk and efficacy. At the personal level, Bev and I look at our own risk and our own expected benefit. Vaccines have been around since 1796, and I’ve had annual vaccinations since 1973. Based on that experience, I’m convinced of their personal efficacy. And with today’s research tools, anyone can look up the answer to a simple question: “What is the risk of being injured by a COVID vaccine?” Since every reader can do that research themselves, I’ll leave that part to you.

Critical thinking also requires looking beyond the personal level to the public level. Over the past six years, public discussion has focused on herd immunity and mandatory vaccination. It’s time to take a calm, critical-thinking approach to the question of mandatory personal vaccination for the sake of public herd immunity.

Let’s agree on two basic facts as we continue:

1. Every medical intervention carries some risk of adverse outcomes.
2. “Mandatory” means authorities are restricting the rights of individuals who do not comply.

The phenomenon of large numbers means that, in a country of 41 million people, hundreds of Canadians will experience a serious adverse effect from any large-scale vaccine program. Statistically, that number is extremely small. But for each of those individuals, the impact is not small at all.

As an individual, I willingly accept the personal vaccine risk because it is dramatically outweighed by the risks of the diseases themselves. But as a citizen participating in a democratic process, I also have to acknowledge accountability for those who were mandated to take that risk (to reduce my risk) and who suffered harm as a result.

Canada does have a compensation program. Between 2021 and 2025, it paid out $21,474,722 to claimants (source: Canada.ca).

Another part of accountability is simply listening. In September 2026, the Allison Inquiry — chaired by MP Dean Allison and organized by the COVID Testimony Association — convened on Parliament Hill. About 1,400 people applied to testify; around 50 were heard. Their testimonies are publicly available. With that content accessible to everyone, we can listen, consider how compelling each story is, and decide whether further political action is warranted.

Critical thinking is complicated by a few additional factors:

• Some people genuinely fear needles, and others respond with misdirected questions like “Didja take the jab?”
• The topic is vulnerable to politically charged narratives about “Big Pharma fraud.”
• Compensation programs must deal with the reality that some people will falsely claim harm to obtain government money.

These factors cloud the thinking of people who are prone to polarization. When a topic pits individual rights against the rights of society, discussion often collapses into two passionate, one-sided arguments. Those of us who believe in satan know this is exactly the kind of debate where deception thrives — confusion, distrust, and hysteria on one side, and herd hysteria on the other.

Herd immunity without herd hysteria should be the goal.

In conclusion: vaccination serves the public good. As with all medical interventions, there is some risk of harm. We must be able to verify harm and compensate those who are harmed in service of the public good. Governments must have the authority to mandate vaccination, but the threshold for exercising that authority must be extremely high.