Skip to main content

Why COVID-19 divided us and still does.

Here is the 2nd of a 3-part series on the COVID-19 vaccine and related issues.  Last week, I opined that COVID-19 is now greeted with a collective yawn by Americans.  We have moved on but the virus is still here.  COVID-19 vaccine interest has also certainly waned.  Another yawn.

Commenters who read last week’s Whistleblower post on my Substack platform vehemently disagreed with me. Indeed, I have received more reaction to that post than to any other in recent memory, and the comments are still coming in.  I will offer them, as well as all readers, some directed comments at the conclusion of this post 

How do I regard the COVID-19 vaccine?  Over my long medical career, I have witnessed true miraculous medical milestones.  Operation Warp Speed in Trump’s first administration was one of them, which he himself readily acknowledges.  Trump announced proudly during the pandemic that Warp Speed was “one of the greatest miracles of the ages” and that the vaccines prevented "another 1917 Spanish flu".  Warp speed delivered highly safe and highly effective COVID-19 vaccines into our arms in less than a year – a truly monumental scientific achievement. Millions of lives were saved.  Perhaps, you or a loved one were one of them?

Americans were scrambling to receive the initial vaccine series.  This vaccines were launched using mRNA technology, which has been disparaged by many, as I pointed out in last week’s post and was reinforced by several commenters.  Had our scientists not utilized it, how many more lives would have been lost?  Perhaps, you or a loved one may have been one of them? 

However, over time, the public has clearly lost interest in the virus and the vaccines that are available to combat it.  Yes there are some who reject the vaccines’ safety and efficacy claims, but I maintain that there has been a general acceptance of 'we're moving on’ from the pandemic. 

Why has this happened?  To begin, the disease is no longer viewed as the threat that it once was. We are not walking around in masks and maintaining a zone of separation from others. Many believe that the efficacy of later boosters and vaccines is less than that of the original vaccine series.  There is also a reasonable belief that many of us have acquired a good measure of immunity from prior immunizations as well as from COVID infections. 


Two individuals expressing disagreement over COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

But these are not the only reasons explaining vaccine reluctance or even hostility.  Politics infected our national public health landscape.  I admit that I was unprepared for this development and was truly shocked when it occurred.  I naively expected that the pandemic would be a unifying experience since disease should be immune from politics.  People were dying.  Do you recall ICU patients on ventilators expressing regret for rejecting the vaccine?  Fears of running out of ventilators?  Morgue trucks in parking lots?  Nightly cheers for our first responders?  We were not debating a tax or tariff issue or immigration policy or climate change regulations. We expect political involvement in political issues like these.  But a pandemic?  A virus was ripping across the country and the planet with no political agenda or target.  I wrongly thought that this global health catastrophe would have united us in a shared purpose to fight back with every available weapon in a mission to save lives.

Instead, the virus further fueled division and polarization as reaction from my last week's post illustrates. We fought over vaccine mandates, Ivermectin, masks, lockdowns, government overreach and the origin of the pandemic.  Many even vilified public health experts, many of whom had served the nation for decades.  Did they deserve criticism for their pandemic decisions and policies?  Of course.  But personal attacks and vilification were indecent. 

Was there government overreach?  Next week, I’ll address this. 

End of current post. Now, as promised, a message below to readers and commenters.  Please know that I welcome your views and love the dialogue. That's why I've been a blogger for over 15 years.

I disagreed with nearly all of those who commented on my post last week. I stand by my post and I trust that they stand by their views.  By and large, the comments were respectful and I allowed every one of them to stand.  I will not, however,  permit personal attacks on this site, and while some came close last week, I let them be so that readers could judge for themselves.  Readers should know that if I ever delete a comment from any future post, it will not be because of content offered respectfully, but because ad hominem, wildly inappropriate or gratuitously inflammatory views were expressed.  Be respectful.

Readers and the rest of us need to make up our own minds on the vexing issues of the day.  Clearly there are some views that are so firmly held that they are inalterable. I may harbor such views myself on certain issues. Truth seeking to me means searching out authoritative and objective sources for information.  Does the source have a bias or an agenda to be considered?  For instance, would we trust doctors more than insurance companies with regard to our health?  Some sources may be imperfect but are still valuable.  Demand a verifiable scientific basis for claims made on all sides of an issue. Remember also that science is not perfect.  Even settled medical and scientific dogma will have dissenting views with a study or two that offers a different conclusion which may be ripe targets for cherry picking dissenters.  For instance, if you do a quick search on health benefits of smoking, as I just did, you will find reports that tobacco use is associated with improvement or even prevention of certain diseases. Would this warrant the medical profession questioning or revising its stance on the hazards of smoking?  Consider the totality of the evidence available when making a judgement.  Thanks for reading.  

Editor’s Note: For 16 years, I've published weekly essays here on Blogspot, which will continue. I’ve now begun publishing my work on a new blogging platform, Substack, and I hope you’ll join me there. Please enter your email address at this link to receive my posts directly to your inbox.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

When Should Doctors Retire?

I am asked with some regularity whether I am aiming to retire in the near term.  Years ago, I never received such inquiries.  Why now?   Might it be because my coiffure and goatee – although finely-manicured – has long entered the gray area?  Could it be because many other even younger physicians have given up their stethoscopes for lives of leisure? (Hopefully, my inquiring patients are not suspecting me of professional performance lapses!) Interestingly, a nurse in my office recently approached me and asked me sotto voce that she heard I was retiring.    “Interesting,” I remarked.   Since I was unaware of this retirement news, I asked her when would be my last day at work.   I have no idea where this erroneous rumor originated from.   I requested that my nurse-friend contact her flawed intel source and set him or her straight.   Retirement might seem tempting to me as I have so many other interests.   Indeed, reading and ...

Stop Medical Malpractice: The White Coat Wall of Silence

Photo Credit Leisure Guy, one of my most faithful commenters, opines that I am omitting an important aspect of the tort reform argument. He has implored me repeatedly to read a particular book that I suspect buttresses his views, but this worthy pursuit is simply not near the top of my priority pyramid. Since he’s retired, he enjoys the luxury of burrowing deeply into the base of his priority pyramid. With 4 tuitions to go, retirement is a distant mirage for me. I’m can be a ‘leisure guy’, but only in my dreams. I have written throughout this blog and elsewhere that there are too many frivolous lawsuits against physicians. I have admitted that caps on non-economic damages are not ideal, because they deny some worthy plaintiffs of complete compensation, but I support them because I believe they serve the greater good. I have ranted that there is no effective filter to screen out physicians who should never be invited to the litigation party in the first place. I believe that the...

Prostate Cancer Screening: Stop The PSA Train!

About 10 years ago, my dad was to see his general internist. I have always refrained from giving medical advice to my family, for all of the reasons why doctors should not treat or advise their relatives. But, on this occasion, I did give Dad some unsolicited advice, particularly as I knew that his physician fired the diagnostic testing trigger readily. “Dad, please make sure that he doesn’t check the PSA (prostate specific antigen) test.” Dad indicated that he would convey my concern to his doctor, who ran the test on him anyway. Apparently, he includes the PSA test as a matter of routine on all men over a certain age. Twenty-five years ago as a curious, but skeptical medical student, I learned about prostate cancer. I learned that every man will develop it if he lives long enough. I learned that most cases of prostate cancer remain silent and never interfere with the individual’s life. I learned that the treatment for these cancers involves either major surgery or radiation, both of ...