Tuesday, April 13, 2021

Michigan's Schizophrenic Covid policies

So, there I was, standing in line (8' from the nearest person) to get my second Covid-19 vaccination. Whether you think it is effective or I think it is effective is not germane to this post. The fact is that the State of Michigan thinks they are magically effective.

"Please read the following questions" Paul boomed at me. Then he proceeded to read them.

"Question Two" he said "Have you been in close exposure to somebody with Covid?"

"Define 'close exposure'" I replied.

Hmmm. I don't think anybody ever laid that one on him. He had me shuffle over to the high-priced talent behind the chains.

"Define 'close exposure'" I repeated.

They read from their script. 

"Yup. Somebody in my household was diagnosed with Covid in the last fourteen days" I said.

"When was the last time he was in your house?" she asked.

"This morning"

Queue Ernie Harwell voice "Going, going, going...It's gone ladies and gentlemen. Into the upper decks."

They made me leave and mandated which exit I had to leave by so they could keep an eye on me.


If you are in a circumstance where you are being exposed and it might presumably give you protection...you cannot have it.

If you live in a sterile environment where you are under low-to-no exposure you must take it (by their lights).



On a more positive note: I got the lilac liners into the ground. Since they look anonymous and labels get lost, from north-to-south:

1 Betsy Ross (white)

3 Congo (plum fading to purple)

2 Fiala's Rememberance (white)

2 Ludwig Spaeth (lilac)

1 Monge (purple)

2 Prez Grevy (bluish. I wonder if it is bluer under more alkaline conditions)


  1. But, but, you've already had #1, so you are mostly immune? Right? #2 is booster rocket. Don't lie, instead tell them what they want to hear. Nothing covid19 makes any sense. And stories like yours only make it out into the world person to person telling.

  2. So if you have potentially been exposed to someone who has it, you cannot have the vaccine. The vaccine is only for those who have not been exposed and therefore do not need it. Yup, makes perfect sense. In a government kind of way, that is.

  3. It appears there is reason to be cautious. There seems to be a correlation regarding those who have been either exposed to, or contracted covid, and blood platelet problems. It appears that's why the J & J version has been put on a hard pause. I just watched a Harvard trained virologist explain that he believes the same problem exists with the other two. At this time however, with our experience with tests that don't seem to accurately determine whether one does or does not have covid, it all seems like you need poly sided dice as opposed to flipping a coin to be sure of what's up.

    1. I should say the correlation is between those that have been exposed or contracted covid getting one of the shot varients.

  4. The system worked exactly as it was designed to do and gave the desired results.

    The whole point is to demonstrate visible compliance with whatever procedures the authorities may order us to follow. This was the result of this incident.

    If you want the treatment, you simple give the desired answers to whatever questions they ask, and then you will get the treatment. Truthfulness or correctness of the answers has absolutely nothing to do with it. Whether the treatment works or not has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    I don't know if the treatment works or not. Most of my relatives have gotten it and none of them are dead yet. Maybe it will all be OK.

    This is the "New Normal". Yes, it is worse that the "Old Awful".

  5. Ran into a gent who had a sticker on his shirt. "What's that?"

    "Sticker that said I could go into the hospital because I don't have COVID."

    Me: "So, the sticker means you're well enough to go into the hospital?"

  6. If they believe it doesn't work well, but they don't want that exposed too quickly, they would only give the shots to people unlikely to benefit from them, so occasional ineffectiveness wouldn't become too obvious too quickly.

  7. I was contemplating whether or not to get the shot(s), but wondered if I might already have immunity. Why? Because I was a steady twice-a-day user of the DC Metro, passing Reagan National Airport, right up until March 2020 when my employer closed their Arlington office building and sent everyone to work from home. That, and the high incidence of asymptomatic infected made me wonder if I'd already had it, didin't know it, and so had the antibodies.

    In which case, why get the shot(s)?

    So as I scheduled my test (for this morning) and explained all this to the scheduler, she said that the presence of antibodies would be nil after about 3 months. So testing wouldn't likely find anything. But she seemed happy to schedule the test anyway.

    3 months? So your immune system only has the endurance to work for 3 months after fighting the infection? Does that hold true for the "vaccines" as well? Or do the vaccines continually activate your immune system to keep producing antibodies? In which case, the vaccines make your body think that it is continuously fighting the infection? That's not normal, is it?

    And I read that the vaccine manufacturers only say that the vaccine will make your infection symptoms less severe, but that you can still get and carry and possibly transmit the virus. That the virus can still survive inside you.

    There are so many unanswered questions. Still.


Readers who are willing to comment make this a better blog. Civil dialog is a valuable thing.