Legislative Blog

J.B. Williams, J.D.

Influenza and Firearms Deaths

A Blog about More Data on Topics

A Bit of Background

The following backgrounds help summarize the author's views on both the general topic: Other and more specifically More Data on Topics as it relates to that topic.

Brief Summary of Other

Topics here may be related to legal matters but not innately legal. For instance, discussing grocery plastic bags versus cotton cloth bags. The item itself is not legal but many city governments have placed it into legislation.

Summary of More Data on Topics

The idea is to provide more data in a variety of ways. This should allow you to see the issue more clearly rather than being driven by fear.

Blog Summary

I discovered more about the data than I expected, and some in areas I gathered just for comparison for myself. What I learned was what is being listed as Influenza, including COVID-19, deaths has grown substantially. Interesting that influenza without COVID-19 data seems to have shrunk substantially. For me this calls into question the accuracy of the COVID-19 data and/or the past influenza data. But the per population data, still shows these numbers significantly smaller than you'd expect.

For firearms, what I discovered was not this huge jump in firearms deaths. At least compared to the last "peak" found in 2017. But a steady drop in the per population comparison. And I found a significant drop in deaths for those 18 and under from automobiles. Everyone is talking about the firearms surpassing the automobile deaths for those under 18 but not the significance of the lower of the deaths from automobiles. (These 2 areas were next to one another in deaths for many years.)

And no one is mentioning that suicides far outnumber the number of firearms deaths. In fact, influenza deaths from 2017 outnumber total firearms deaths for 2022. Yet in 2017 we were not focusing on influenza to decrease those numbers. Nor are we currently focusing on suicides as a good place to focus individuals and entity attention to reduce this valuation. Instead we focus on banning something that will likely make no significant difference in the final numbers. But I imagine they can present them differently and convince people it made some difference.

Read the entire blog to see the data from different perspectives.

Influenza and Firearms Deaths

Published: 2023-04-30

Over the past 2 to 2 1/2 years there has been a great deal of using statistics to create fear, and convince people to do this or that, or believe this or that. It hasn't stopped, and both sides of the political aisle do it. And if you dare point out the same information in another manner, people get upset with you. It makes the same thing sound very different, and cognitive dissonance sets in. I'm going to talk about a few different things that I've seen repeatedly talked about on social media posts, in news articles and videos. My goal is to provide the "data" in multiple ways. It's a lot of numbers - don't freak out. Some are pure numbers - like how many people died. Some are percentages - like showing the deaths per capita or deaths per 100K. Some feel listing the deaths per 100K diminishes the number of people that died but it's really just another way of viewing things. This is especially true when looking at percentage of deaths per population. The population is so large that those numbers seem very small. Seen as per 100K they are still small but they cross over into greater than 1 so that people actually pay attention to them. I also look at deaths per population over time. There may be more that died in this year than the prior year, but if it grows at a rate lower than the population growth that's different than it growing faster. For instance, a larger number of people died from heart disease in 2022 than in 2021. Looking at deaths per population it grew .202 from 2021 to 2022, while the population grew by .695 from 2021 to 2022. A larger population growth than the growth in deaths from heart disease equates to not an overall increase. Yes the number still grew but not as much as it may have, so there was some improvement there. Although it feels better when the number decreases while the population continues increasing, like for cancer.

Understand that the US population has grown every year since 1999 (at least), putting the 2022 population at 334,118,093. In fact the world population has grown in every years since 1999, with the highest percentage increase year over year in 2000. If we take the population of 1999 (which is the base percentage for the increase in 2000 regardless) as the base year, then 2014 had the highest increase of 1.457%, and 2022 had an increase of 1.085% (a differnce of .372). Regardless, the world population (and the US population individually) are growing year over year. While I am not wishing for anyone to pass, the continued growth of the population brings out it's own challenges to the climate, as well as numerouse other issues.

The average percentage of total deaths per capita over that time (1999 to 2022) is .856%. So total losses of less than 1 percent of the population. 2020 was the highest year with a 1.025% deaths per capita, and in 2022 we were at 1.014% deaths per capita.

First, let's jump into the COVID-19 pandemic "fears" that were used to convince people to do a lot of things, including tattling on others and increasing social pressures to do "the right thing". I'll go back to my personal opinions on these things later, but let me try to stick to data at this point. A lot can be said as to the way in which the data is presented to support the "claims being made". Let's first look at the United States population from 1999 to 2022, and consider the information in a multitude of ways. (I went from 1999 to 2022 because I was having some difficulty finding death data for the United States across more than 5 years. Then I could only get every 5 years prior without a great deal of effort. I finally located a dead or kicking site which gathered their data from the CDC site. So I pulled data from their site, just for the ease of doing so.)

Let's look at bit more closely at how death data can be presented. I have downloaded the CDC burden estimates for many influenza seasons. (Here is a general link to the CDC influenza burden data: CDC Flu burden You can get specific pdfs for individual years that contain additoinal data.) Just grabbing the 2010-2011 data we can see that their estimated deaths were 36,656. A number that most have ignored year after year, the per numbers have even been ignored in years of higher deaths that occurred in recent years. But clearly a number that most barely took notice of. This equated to 12.6407% deaths for every hospitalized case. Over 12%, that seems huge! And 2010 was not a particulary heavy year for influenza deaths. Now maybe you can change the optics by looking at the percentage of deaths per total medical visits for influenza - it drops to .3662%. Wow, less than 1/2 percent. That doesn't seem bad at all. What about based upon the estimated per symptomatic illness, it drops to just .1722%, not even .2% (not a ton smaller but smaller). Okay and looking at the deaths per population, just .0119% - not even .1%, not even .05%! As you can see there is a big difference in how the information is presented, and therefore the typical reaction. Now you might say but I care about them all regardless. But there wasn't an uproar of concern over those 36,656 people dying. Now you know different ways of seeing the same data, and you were given all of them. What I have generally heard is that there are less than 1% or .5% of deaths from influenza. And no outrage at those numbers. (I'm not saying that everyone should panick each year as we enter flu season, just that presenting different information could create panick when others would not.)

So for ease of comparison 2010 data:

• 12.6407% per death per hospitalization;
• .3662% per death per medical visit;
• .1722% per death per symptomatic illness; and
• .0199% per death per population.

Now looking at COVID-19 data included in influenza data for 2020, the deaths per population were .1314%. That is not even a 1/2 percent. I wanted to do more detail here but sadly the CDC is not providing specific influenza burden data for 2020, as per their website. They do however provide specific data for 2021 that excludes COVID-19. Their influenza data excluding COVID-19 are:

• 4.5437% per death per hospitalization;
• .1066% per death per medical visit;
• .0495% per death per symptomatic illness; and
• .0014% per death per population.

Now this is signficantly lower than 2010, which did not have a "bad" flu season. And influenza with COVID-19 included had a

.146427% per death per population.

So slightly lower than the 2010 percentage for per symptomatic illness but more than a per population. There was not specific data for influenza including COVID-19 that broke down numbers for hospitalizations, symptomatic illness, and medical visits. So looking at percentage of population the number did significantly increase but did not break 1%.

Now compare that with the 2017 influenza season, which was worse in pure numbers in some parts of the country, with a

• 7.2682% per death per hospitalization (lower than 2010 data);
• .1258% per symptomatic illness (lower than 2010 data); and
• .0159% death per population (lower than 2010 data).

Based upon that information one could be led to believe that the 2010 influenza season was worse that the 2017. However, from a pure number of deaths: 51,646 in 2017 and 36,656 in 2010. So clearly more people died in 2017, yet per population the numbers from 2010 seem worse.

The media is not always kind in the information they provide. They provide the information that most supports their narrative. This is true regardless of whose "side" you choose to listen to. For something like this providing all of the data would be much more useful. Even providing straight numbers like this:

• year 2010 had 36,656 influenza deaths;
• year 2017 had 51,646 influenza deaths; and
• year 2021 had 485,843 influenza deaths (this is approximately 9.4 times the 2017 value).

This assumes you believe the numbers are reported accurately. The Texas reported numbers for 2017 represent 25% of the overall influenza numbers for the year. So I'm not 100% certain either the Texas nor the CDC value for that year is accurate, or for that matter any year. Which can only lead to questioning all of the data accuracy, but let's assume the data is accurate enough for what we are reviewing. At the very least, it's similarly gathered each year. (At least as far as influenza data for 1999 to 2019. The pure numbers for 2020 of less than 5,000 influenza deaths would either make the prior numbers be questioned or the inclusion of more numbers than accurate in COVID-19 data. But that's a completely different issue.)

On a side note, the number of deaths from influenza (including COVID-19) from 2020 to 2021 increased, and by over 12%. While the 2022 numbers fell below even the 2020 numbers. Although the value still ranks has the 3rd highest cause of death. The highest ranking cause of death remains heart disease, followed by cancer. Sadly heart disease has been increasing every year since 2017. However, it has only been increasing at a rate of about 1-2 people per 100,000, which is less than the rate of population growth. Again reactions can be different when presenting the same information in a different manner.

Next, let's look at firearms deaths. Another issue which gets a lot of press coverage. We continue to cycle back here in attempts to "fix" this by limiting gun ownership. So let's look at the numbers in a variety of ways to see what we think. Perhaps there is something in these, along with other information that might provide a "solution" that might actually have some affect on the numbers. (Unfortunately the gut instinct to do something, anything to fix it - it often results in lots of arguments, compromises all around that result in little to no change in solving the problem at hand. Those that wanted more change will blame the compromises, and those that gave up something will say it made little to no difference to the problem and wasn't worth what was given up. This leads to more arguments and it all begins again.) Without further ado,...

We begin purely on firearms deaths, this includes suicide and accidental deaths. It is the 15th highest ranking cause of death in the US. Based upon the data, there were 40,358 firearms deaths in 2022 and 40,149 in 2021. (By the way, less than the deaths from influenza in 2017. Remember those numbers from above, the ones that almost no one was concerned about.) Which is being stated as an increase in deaths from firearms, which is accurate. However, on a death per 100,000 population:

• 12.08 in 2022 and
• 12.10 in 2021.

This could be stated as a lower death rate per 100,000, which again would be true. In fact, in 2017 there were

• 12.21 deaths per 100,000.

This is the highest it has been since 1999. For me this means that we have managed to lower the rates of violence since 2017, and that in the past 24 years we are not on a horrible trajectory. And reviewing all of the data, 2022 had 5 years with higher values than in prior years, and they were all post 2016. Which means that since the peak of 2017, we have been reducing violence. Now I'm not sure what specifically brought about the spike in 2017, but we are trying to focus on overall patterns. And our pattern is lowering not raising percentage of deaths per population. No, I don't think we should merely pat ourselves on the back and move on.

On a side note: I've not looked back to see what was possible causes of the increased violence that was seen in 2017, but I can tell you it wasn't an ending of "assault rifle" bans. That ban went into effect in 1994 and lapsed in 2004, some 13 years prior to the 2017 peak. In fact only half of the years from 1999 to 2017 resulted in a higher per 100,000 population of death from firearms. And these were not all years post 2004. The highest jump was 2014 to 2015 with a .743 increase year over year. (Population growth exceeded .79% that year.) So while that is the highest, it did not exceed population growth.

Some of you may say I don't care if it exceeds population growth or not, I just want it to be lower. I agree, lower would be great. But understand that not exceeding population growth means the overall issue did not increase substantially. Let us not forget that we were not making a big deal about the 51K+ people that died from influenza in 2017 but we are making a big deal about the 40,358 deaths from firearms. (By the way, there were still 411,667 deaths from influenza in 2022. And 48,252 suicides. Yes suicide ranks as the 10th leading cause of death in the US. Poisoning ranks as the 8th leading cause of death. Until you hit one of the top 7 leading causes of deaths, the number of deaths does not exceed 100,000. (The top 7 are : Heart disease, cancer, influenza, stroke, chronic lower respiratory, Alzheimer's, and diabetes.)

And this is not about those under the age of 18 either. Please for over 2 years there was nothing but loathing if you did not do as told to protect those dying of COVID-19, yet the number of those under 18 was signficantly less than those who die from influenza in other years. This is about power and control and nothing more. Otherwise, there would be more data provided rather than only that which helps support their cause. I've even seen statements that more under 18 die from firearms than automobile accidents. Very true, but what should really be said is wow - look at the huge drop in deaths from automobiles for those under 18. Because when you review the data, there is a sharp drop in deaths for children in automobiles. By the way the number of total deaths from automobiles fell below firearms deaths in 2017 not in 2022 or 2023, so it's not a new thing. It's just now becoming a big talking point about how more children die from firearms than automobiles.

I've also heard the Australia gun laws touted as what the US should follow because it worked so well there. First, firearms deaths in Australia were on a downward trend prior to the passage of the legislation in 1996. So a downward trend post it's passage doesn't really equate to the affect of the law. Second, there is no way without a Constitutional amendment to do what they did - thankfully. Australia prohibited semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, with few exceptions. All firearms had to be registered, a proof of reason would be required for all gun-license applicants and purchases; and self-defense was not considered a reason. Ammunition sales were restricted to those licensed for a specific firearm. They had a buyback program that cost $500m and destroyed 650,000 guns. Firearms deaths have decreased for the most part since 1999 through 2005. There was a slight uptick in 2000. Since 2005 it has been bouncing around the 1.5 -1.75 per 100,000 population. While suicide rates did drop in Australia post the 1996 gun legislation, suicide rates in the US and Canada were dropping as well. And the rates have since climbed back up in all of those locations. The gun laws didn't stop a multitude of firearms deaths, if for no reason other than Australia didn't have a multitude of firearms deaths prior to the legislation.

You could point to Norway, they have high gun ownership rates and low firearms related deaths. From 2012 to 2022, they peaked at 7 homicides involving firearms in 2021, while homicides themselves peaked at 38 in 2013 (with only 1 involving a firearm). Now these are homicides only and it doesn't include accidental discharges or suicides. Their rates have been small and yet gun ownership is high, but this doesn't equate to a solution for the United States. (By this same token, trash on the "ground" in the US is much higher than in Japan. But I don't want to institute the laws they have to correct our trash issue.)

So let's look instead at firearms deaths worldwide. Total gun deaths for the US makes the top 8 list worldwide. (The most recent comparison data was 2019. I may later update with a blog showing 2020 or later data.)

Speaking statisically, the countries with the highest total gun deaths in 2019:

• Brazil - 49,436
• United States - 37,038
• Venezuela - 28,515
• Mexico - 22,116
• India - 14,710
• Colombia - 13,169
• Phillipines - 9,267
• Guatemala - 5,980

Looking at violent gun deaths - that is homicides, which would include school shootings, the US doesn't even make the top 10.

The countries with the highest rate of violent gun deaths (homicides) per 100K residents in 2019:

• El Salvador - 36.78
• Venezuela - 33.27
• Guatemala - 29.06
• Colombia - 26.36
• Brazil - 21.93
• Bahamas - 21.52
• Honduras - 20.15
• U.S. Virgin Islands - 19.40
• Puerto Rico - 18.14
• Mexico - 16.41

Then looking at firearms related suicides - the US again makes the list of top 10. Interestingly,

The countries with the highest rate of firearm-related suicides (per 100K) in 2019:

• Greenland - 16.36
• United States - 7.12
• Urguguay - 4.74
• San Marino - 4.08
• Montenegro - 3.40
• Argentina - 2.67
• Finland - 2.66
• Monaco - 2.64
• France - 2.64
• Venezuela - 2.50

This puts things in a difference perspective, at least for me. The United States makes the top 10 in suicide related firearms per 100K. And suicides are not being committed with "assault rifles". And just to keep things honest, in 2023 the US ranked 22nd for firearm-related deaths per 100K, coming in at 10.89 deaths per 100,000. While this is higher than some countries, it is much lower than other countries. I could cherry pick data as is often done to provide information that targets countries with stricter gun laws and higher firearms deaths. But in all honesty a lot of what happens is the US media covers "mass" shootings (which keep changing how they are defined) in mass volume so that you are not likely to miss hearing about one. In fact, you are more likely to hear about one more than once, and even think it is an entirely new one rather than one previously covered. Then everyone targets the "assault rifles" as the cause and gets on their soapboxes. Most mass shootings happened with handguns, and the place where the US shows up the most for actual deaths with firearms per 100K is, again, for suicides. Again a suicide is happening with a handgun not an "assault rifle". And our own legislation that went into effect in 1996, and ended a decade later, showed no statistical difference in firearms-related deaths during that decade. In fact, if it had made a significant different the law could have been extended. So putting it into effect again will not change things in any signficant way.

And no I am not suggesting a ban on handguns or a national registry. We have "commonsense" gun laws for running background checks before sales. (If you want to know a specific state gun law check them out here: Pewpew tactical or NRA Legislative Gun Laws ) The later providing a color-coded map for some general information.) Some states have stricter laws but it hasn't stopped the "gun violence". I know it is blamed on people buying in a neighboring state and carrying it across state lines, or buying on line because that is what the media tells you. In reality if you buy a gun on line, it must be shipped to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder near you for you to pick-up. The FFL holder is going to do the same thing as they would if you were purchasing from them. They will need your ID and you have to complete a Form 4473 (firearms transaction record). This is than submitted to NCIS for review and either approval or disapproval. Depending on your state laws and how busy NCIS is, this can take minutes to days. Once approved, you pay your NCIS transfer fee and get your gun. Of course if you have a valid conceal carry permit, your background check would have been already completed, and it is not necessary to do another one.

And if you attempt to purchase outside of your state, same rules as above. You can make the purchase but the gun would have to be shipped to a Federal Firearms License holder in the state where you reside. You would be required to pick up the gun in the state where you reside, following the same procedures you would for purchasing a gun in person in your state. As for straw-man sales, well a straw-man sale is legally defined as someone purchasing a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from owning a gun. Those are already illegal. So if someone does this, they have committed a violation of Federal law. And if you check the box on the Form 4473 saying you are not the person for whom you are purchasing the gun, the FFL may not proceed with the gun sale/transer. Understand I am not saying it doesn't occur but I am saying it already is illegal. I doubt making a different law saying it is illegal will make any difference to those currently doing it.

But back to the numbers. It screams to me that we have a suicide issue in this country. Yes I agree that a gun is a quicker means of suicide than other methods. But perhaps we should be addressing firearms deaths from this perspective, something more likely to move the US out of the top 10, or at least lower in the numbers. Perhaps ensuring the everyone knows about gun safes. There are so many out there. And properly storing your handguns and long guns would ensure that no one that isn't authorized access can get to them. Perhaps encouraging people with children to store handguns in a safe to which their children have no access. If you are concerned about their safety when you are not home, they could have access to a safe with long guns instead. We've lowered child deaths in car accidents by ensuring that people understand the children under certain sizes are safer in the rear seats, even after they are no longer in child safety seats. It's not perfect, but no system is.

And perhaps looking at the reason so no many are committing suicide. I'm certain it is not all the same reason, but if we can narrow things to determine the leading causes of those driven to commit or attempt to commit suicide. Then perhaps knowing this would provide more insight for those around people to "see" potentials for suicide. It is those near the people who can perhaps encourage the person to get help to resolving their problems and help them to understand that suicide is not a solution. Again not a perfect solution, but more focus here is not a bad thing. After all there are more suicides than firearms deaths. Again, however, I am not recommending the Federal government institute studies or laws. I merely think that information from places that are working with attempted suicides should be listened to more closely. Perhaps the sharing of non-personal data would help them to narrow the field for issues. I'm not seeing a huge benefit to removing lifetime caps for mental health care from insurance. But perhaps there is one.

Now I've clearly strayed from data to personal opinions. Feel free to disagree with my direction of addressing the firearms death problem. But understand the full extent of the information regarding firearms deaths when you do. Don't just dig in your heels and insist banning "assault weapons" will solve the problem. Look at the data and make an informed decision based upon that. And don't just believe what you are told by the media, congress people, or this blog. Go review the data for yourself and get a good understanding of it. Then you can make an informed decision and have data that you feel supports your decision.

Since I've wandered into the personal opinions, let me continue down this path a bit more. I watched/heard so many things that people did during the pandemic that seemed so unlike some of those I knew, typical of others I knew, and just overall sad in general. First, I personally thought there was a reason to take a 30 days "break" to see how this was going to move through the population, and perhaps, do some more extreme things for that short time. These included no school, limited in person work, and a general attempt for people to remain at home as much as possible. And when you couldn't remain home, the wearing of a mask, limiting people inside a store, and keeping your distance all seemed reasonable. However, at the end of the 30 days, I did not think those were necessary for the general public. For those at high risk, they needed to do more than others and perhaps remain homebound as much as possible.

I was amazed at the things that were instituted and the way in which they were. The limit on the number of people in stores, restaraunts, but open season inside grocery stores, for example. I did not personally see, nor hear about, any grocery store limiting the number of people within the stores. And the stores seemed extremely packed, which if distance was an issue meant transmission should have been signficantly easier. Honestly, my own mild claustraphobia made going into stores more of an issue for longer for me. But yet, I had to wait to walk into a Home Depot. Once inside there seemed to be few people anywhere in the store, yet more often than not when people got near they had no problem closing the 6 foot distance to almost no distance to look at things on the shelves. So much so it was too close for a non-pandemic space in my opinion. Yet in a grocery store if you stepped to get something off a shelf within 6 foot of someone people acted horrified. (Which was weird since I was standing within cart distance from the same person just moments ago.)

The plexiglass put in place everywhere, including eventually in classrooms. The Federal government paid for a study years before the pandemic of 2020 to determine whether this was a good idea or not for spread of influenza like illnesses. The study concluded that barriers placed in spaces did not prevent the spread of germs/illnesses. In fact, it sometimes created pockets where those inside an area would be more likely to "catch" influenza like illnesses from others. The only way to mitigate this when placing barriers was to re-do the entire air flow system/flow. Small barriers basically only prevented issues similar to "sneeze guards" in buffets. Some of the small barriers would not even do this because of their limited height. Larger barriers created problems for air flow and potentially made some areas more prone to pockets of germs residing there. Of course, I know of no entity that bothered to have their air flow patterns reviewed and updated after installation of mass amounts of plexiglass insertion. Plus there was always the issue of who was properly cleaning all of that plexiglass. I know at the courthouse near me, plexiglass was suspended from the ceiling in places. I am not sure, but highly doubt, that the cleaning crew was hauling in tall ladders to enable them to properly clean these. (They have since been removed. However purchase, installation, and removal was all at taxpayer expense.) It seemed much of what was done was to create an appearance of safety without any regard to whether it was safer or not.

The forced closure of some locations to basically "curb side" pick up only or delivery. Why? I'm not sure if they felt those places were merely incapably of properly cleaning or what. I honestly thought beyond a 30 day window, the government needed to make recommendations and explain the basis of why they thought it was the best idea; but other than that remain out of it. I know in Texas we had a must wear masks for entirely too long. And since you could not punish the person for not wearing it, the only place that could be "fined" was the business. Which meant businesses now had to place individuals they employed in a position of enforcing masks. I think encouraging people to wear them to protect others would have been a better solution then ordering they must be worn in a store or the business would be fined. Some would have always worn them, and some may not have ever wanted to. Plus an individual business could make the decision of masks or no masks, and post this notice on their entrance. If you did not want to be around those without a mask you could avoid locations that chose to remain a no mask required facility. I think there would have been plenty on both sides. I know that post our state mask requirement being removed, there were places that kept mask requirements in place and others that did not.

And unfortunately this was only the beginning of the governments drive to hold more power and create more fear. And large numbers of people followed along. I heard of people reporting businesses that were not strictly enforcing the mask mandate, yelling at people who did not have their mask on or properly on, being upset about someone putting something back on a shelf after looking at it, and so much more. I watched one lady run over to another in the parking lot to yell at her that she should not remove her mask and should have it on because she was going to kill people by not having it on. The non-masked lady was loading her groceries into her own vehicle, not near anyone, and had removed it as she arrived at her own vehicle. The other lady was 2 aisles over, and began yelling as the non-masked lady was removing her mask. If she hadn't run over and gotten practically in the other lady's face there would have been more than 6 foot between them at all times. Or perhaps the lady that gasped in shock as I placed my own keys into my mouth while putting groceries into my vehicle. (I guess she was worried about me.)

Then came the shots. (Sorry I just cannot get beyond calling them shots and not vaccines. All those years of flu shots, and so many that took them year after year after year. The huge volume of businesses that ensured their employees could get the flu shot by having someone come to the business to administer them. Yet we needed to call this "flu-type" illnesses shot a vaccine.) First, each state came up with their own rules for adminstering them. I know many who thought their states rules were crazy. States that would permit the 18 year old fast food worker to get it before those over the age of 65. Personally Texas permitted the older individuals, and those at greater risk to get it first. Then those holding law licenses were included in the next group. Ostenstibly because they were the individuals continuing to meet with people whom they did not personally know, and creating a wider range of possible infection. Since I was fairly limited in my exposure during that time, I opted to wait for my age group and my review of the information. I looked at the studies done by 3 of the big name pharmacutical makers. I saw that they were meant to protect you from death. By the time they were available, I saw that my age group was not highly susceptible to death. I made a risk analysis, much like I do often. I watched in horror as it was being "required" of so many. Many of the same individuals that were greatly exposed prior to the shot and that had not gotten significantly ill nor died. But somehow the shot was the better option than their already obviously robust immune system.

I saw some older individuals severly limiting their contact with family until they had their 2nd shot. I saw others continuing to live their lives, and then either getting or not getting the shot. I watched as some people fought to not be required to get the shot for so many reasons. I saw some people go from "yeah I'll get it once I'm able" to "I will never get it by force". I watched people pressure family members to get it or not be invited to family get togethers. I watched people pressure friends or acquaintenances to get it, or be the "****tard that gave it to someone who had gotten the shot. I heard people swear they were now 92% safe from getting it and if everyone would get then we could eradicate COVI-19 forever. It destroyed some family relationships, some friendships, ended with people being fired, with others getting the shot and being forever forced to deal with some new illness or death (I am not saying the shot for sure caused it but I am sure that some did, there is always a down side). It created yet another wedge between people.

First having read the studies, the shot was never going to protect you from catching COVID-19. They did not test for it or even intend that as an outcome. Sorry the "media" betrayed you here, along with those that knew the truth and failed to speak up. It was meant to lower your chances of death if you did catch it. In general, at the time they came out we had a 2% death rate. So it lowered the number that would fall into that range by 92%. Second, the no known long term side effects. Take a step back, the mRna shots were just invented - just being test on humans at least (even the new J&J shot was new). Hard to know long term side effects from something new. I looked at the number of drugs taken back off the market many, many years later because statitiscally the very long term side effects were being seen and were not considered "acceptable". A typical drug trial is substantially longer, and some 2-5 year side effects would be ferretted out. This was a 6 month trial. Some of the individuals that were pregnant during the trial had not even given birth yet. (And there was no actual follow up concerning how those pregnancies came to an end either.) And the number of those in the trial was a very small number. It will be 5-10 years before we know. And if information is pushed out and ignored, it could me substantially longer.

The shots were treated as a requirement in some many ways. The entire HIPPA was completely thrown away for this. It is a violation of HIPPA to ask someone information about medical and health information. Doctors that are treating you can, but that information is confidential. I thought from the very outset, prior to it being "required", that this was a decision each person needed to make on their own with input from their own doctor. Honestly my initial fear was that many would sign up without consulting their doctor because they were being driven by fear, and that the shot may not be their best option. In fact it could cause negative effects. People on medications or with certain conditions. We are told to always make sure doctors/pharmacist know about medications, or even herbal remedies, you are taking before introducing anything new. But for this we treated that as not necessary, perhaps because we knew almost nothing about the shot.

I can only hope that we, as a society, begin to recognize the issues that were caused during the pandemic by being driven almost soley by fear. And that we each take time to stop and check ourselves before making assumptions. I for one was shocked at the audacity of the claim that more children under 18 die from firearms than from automobile accidents. But it's true. What they fail to explain is that there was a significant drop in deaths surrounding automobile accidents, and not a signficant jump in firearms related deaths. (Or at least not in the data through 2022.) But when I felt a - oh come on, I stopped myself and said well let's look to the actual data. And while the statement was not a lie, I was actually thrilled with the drop in automobile deaths. And while looking at the data, I found it interesting that the media and our government is so very focused on firearms deaths when suicide substantially over powers it in deaths. We need to stop just doing something no matter what, and start looking at ways to positively affect things to actually make a change. There are no perfect solutions to any problem, even giving up all of your rights and letting the government control more. What needs to happen is for the government to get out of more things, and allow the individual people to step up and do more. Expecting someone else to solve your problems is a huge part of the problem, at least in my opinion.

 

J.B. Williams, J.D.

4,312 federal laws were passed from 1995 through December 2016.
Along with 88,819 federal rules and regulations.