Ian Wishart on the Media and Covid

1 Comment

Ian Wishart is asking some good questions at the moment. This is taken from his Facebook page.

Some of my media colleagues don’t like the criticism… but again I have to call them out for leaving key facts out of covid stories.

Late this morning news broke of a “fully vaccinated” person who tested positive in Christchurch after returning from a visit to Auckland.

Initially, media reported the case was fully vaccinated. All good.

But by the 6pm news that detail was missing from stories… and curiously missing from the Ministry of Health media release.

In fact tonight you will be hard-pressed to find any current news stories discussing the vax status.

Why is it relevant? Because the patient is a mother with three children under the age of 11. It’s highly likely she was fully vaxxed less than three months ago.

This scenario of the vaccine wearing off much quicker than the assumed six months is becoming all too common – I pinged Stuff last week for telling the story of a fully vaxxed Auckland man catching covid but failing to mention WHEN he had been fully vaxxed: JUST SIX WEEKS EARLIER!

A thunderstorm always begins with a few spits of rain… and then suddenly there’s a deluge. I think a covid thunderstorm is coming and many who have been vaxxed are going to get a surprise.

The media are constantly running talking points from immunologists and science communicators assuring the public that they will get at least six months protection from the vaccine and really minimize the risk of passing it to others. Clearly the communicators are not up to speed with the latest studies. Even the CDC has admitted this week that the vaccines are not preventing spread of the virus as expected and are not good enough to end the pandemic.

And yet, the Government, the Opposition, business leaders, talkback hosts and the news media are marching in lockstep to promote vaccine passports as the key to freedom. Or is it really a pathway from the frying pan into the fire?

1.6 million Aucklanders, with Delta silently infesting them, are about to get their vax passports and be unleashed on all corners of the country… unaware that the vaccines are not going to prevent them catching covid and spreading it – clearly as early as just six weeks after the jab.

National was right. We ARE going to have a covid Christmas after all.

If there was ever a time for the media to be asking hard questions about the unexpectedly short duration of protection from the vaccine, that time is now.

I really do feel like a spectator in the crowd as the naked emperor rides past to cheers from a crowd who have been let down by news media too timid or uninformed to investigate vaccine efficacy.

Don’t get me wrong…we can’t lock down forever and as I have said before, the vaxxed should be able to avoid the worst outcomes personally (albeit despite my calculations that most of the recent NZ Delta deaths have actually been double jabbed)…. but ironically it’s the vaccinated who are about to seed the biggest explosion of covid that New Zealand has seen yet… and the unvaxxed are going to cop it. Sure, most are unvaxxed by choice, but that just illustrates how surreal this crisis has become.

The bitter irony is that we have just divided the team of five million in the name of promoting a vax passport system that even Blind Freddy can see is going to be a Christmas super spreading disaster… and when school resumes in the new year everyone’s children will become fuel and it’s game on.

I hope I am wrong, but based on the UK, Israel and the USA I am not holding my breath.

The vax will help protect you from acute covid… but it won’t prevent you passing it on when you hug grandma at the bach. If anyone reading this seriously believes their vax passport is proof of immunity I have got last week’s winning lotto ticket for sale.

And finally., just as proof that the Christchurch case was fully vaccinated… here’s this morning’s story.

Memo to news editors: publish ALL relevant facts in every story. Stop forgetting to mention that the vax is wearing off early. Stop forgetting to mention that the double vaxxed are still dying. You want public trust? Tell all sides of the story.

Grant Schofield on the Vaccine Mandates

1 Comment

Taken from Professor Grant Schofield’s Facebook Page. He is Professor of Public Health at AUT University and director of the University’s Human Potential Centre.

This post has taken me too long to get up the guts to write.

You see I’m a Professor in Public Health. One of the most important things in public health is “to do no harm”. Or at least in a more practical sense, have the good by far outweigh the harms you cause with whatever intervention you choose.

This is about vaccine mandates. It’s a complex and emotive issue.

The brutal truth is that there are no harm free choices here. All choices will have some harm.

But, deadlines are coming – here’s our Ministry of Health’s advice under public orders “Any health and disability workers (employed or voluntary, private and public) who fall under these roles must receive their first dose of the vaccine by 11.59pm 15 November 2021. They must receive their second dose by 1 January 2022.”

That’s Monday folks.

I’m not an “anti-vaxxer”. I’m fully vaccinated.

But some people will choose not to follow these orders for various reasons. Some of them may be logical based on the data that there is no protection beyond 200 days, and the data on reductions in transmission are limited, and they are concerned about adverse events.

We all make different decisions given similar data because we are all different and have different ways of weighing risks and benefits. They may see the futility of a public health system which would on current evidence have to boost every 120-150 days to maintain vaccine efficacy. Or maybe they just don’t like being told what to do, or have a more complex theory which may be spurious. Who really knows?

Anyway, the point is that there will always be a group who for whatever reason decides that, in this case, their bodily sovereignty, is sacred to them and they will refuse a public health order like this.

What this means is on Monday kids will turn up to school and their classroom teacher will no longer be there, that their mid-wife will no longer be working, that their doctor is no longer able to practice.

This will cause serious harm. It almost certainly will mean that our already overwhelmed health and education systems will not have the staff to carry out normal duties.

This debate has already caused substantial harm and division in our beautiful country.I believe in the context of the recent Swedish data showing vaccine waning, that it’s now obvious to any thinking person the futility of these mandates.

We can predict that the exact thing we are trying to avoid “overwhelming the health system” is exactly what we are going to do by firing health workers.

What government puts on its own handcuffs on and throws away the key?

This isn’t us.

So sorry I can’t stand by silently and watch this. I have to say something.

I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to pluck up the courage.

Sorry if this upsets you, but come Monday I know of real teachers, real GPs, real mid-wives, real physios, real people without jobs. Real communities without their beloved teachers and health professionals who are here to care for them. These are my communities, my friends, my school.

These are mostly not lunatic fringe anti-vaxxers. They are people often making their own rationale decision. Yes its different than mine, but it is theirs.

I fear we are choosing more harm than good, and in my field that’s just not acceptable. In fact it’s unethical and immoral.

Please think about what your thoughts are on this matter. It is really an important one for our society right now. Saying nothing when you think there will be more harm than good is complicit in supporting that harm.

Please comment, share, or do whatever you think is right here. Please if you do comment think about what you say and please confront the issues not the person.

Thanks for reading this,

Grant Schofield PhD

Professor of Public Health

*disclaimer – these views are mine and don’t represent those of anyone else, including those who employ me.

New Writer Coming Tomorrow

We are excited to announce a new writer for The Sojournal. Christie Blair joins the team with her first article scheduled to appear tomorrow morning. Christie is a Christian university student with interests in literature, history and Christian worldview. Check out her article tomorrow.

I wonder…

I wonder. Will the evangelical thought leaders, who have in recent times become so concerned with the health of their brothers and sisters in Christ that they constantly and publically urge and shame them into getting the Covid vaccine, start using the same tactics regarding other health issues? You know, like obesity? And exercise?

Oh no, I guess that would be fat-shaming. Funny how when the propaganda is with them they are so bold. When the narrative is against them, they are like little kittens.

The Resistance – Evangelism and the Lordship of Christ – Part 4

1 Comment

Due to the events currently taking place in New Zealand, we had to postpone continuing The Resistance series. The events including mandated vaccines for health care professionals, teachers and others as well as rules that will punish churches who choose to operate non-segregated services. This only goes to prove what we suggested at the beginning of this series.

It certainly feels like we are on the edge of something. And when I say “something”, I do not mean pink cupcakes with chocolate sprinkles. More the kind of something that Gandalf refers to when sitting with Pippin on the walls of Minas Tirith and says, “It’s the deep breath before the plunge.”

Things are certainly intensifying, fault lines are showing, and we are beginning to see division. In some ways this is healthy. All around New Zealand the reactions to what is going on are telling. We learn which pastors are courageous, and those who can only talk a good game. Those who have sold out because of their desire to look socially acceptable to the powers that be are obvious as are those who are controlled by fear of man rather than fear of God. We continue to see the divide between Christians who actually have a Christian worldview and those who have a personal faith, but have been deluded by the shallow and deceptive philosophies of this world. I suspect these divisions will become clearer and lead to changing alliances and movement among churches.

So now is a good time to once again continue our series on Christian resistance in these times. Thus far we have covered the first 3 requirements: repentance over individual and corporate sin, dependence on the Word, Spirit and prayer and confronting the dualism that has stripped the church and its members of strength.

Today we will briefly focus on the fourth requirement of Christian Resistance.

We must develop and practise an evangelism that not only calls for personal salvation, but Christ’s lordship in every sphere of life. In other words we must disciple the nations to obey everything that Christ taught and call unbelievers to recognise Christ’s kingship on earth.

Read More

Strong Words

1 Comment

It seems the ordinary people are over Jacinda. May this movement grow and swell. She’s got to go.

“Dear Jacinda, you can threaten me all you like

You won’t break my will, I won’t join your reich

I won’t do as you say, won’t forsake my rights

Won’t betray my heritage my ancestor’s fight

The freedom that they bled for I won’t let that die

Make me take that jab you’d have to take my life.”

Warning – Strong language.

New Marcionites

1 Comment

I’ve noticed recently that a number of Christians when discussing Scripture seem to relegate the Old Testament as sub-standard. The law of God is particularly shunned. Comments like “I see you are quoting from the Old Testament, but we are New Testament Christians,” abound. It’s almost as though these people think Christ has done away with the Old Testament. These are our modern-day Marcions.

To respond, we must first of all look at how Jesus viewed the Law. In Matthew 5 in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus explains the Christian approach to the Law and the Prophets (the majority of the Old Testament.)

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. – Matthew 5:8-20

Sometimes people remember the fact that Jesus came to fulfil the Law, and assume this means he has done away with it. But the very context does not support this. Fulfil cannot mean abolish, since it is contrasted with that word. Jesus does not abrogate the law, he fulfils it for us. This does not mean the law has no relevance to the life of the Christian anymore. According to Christ, people who teach that will be least in the kingdom of heaven! Hardly a view he endorses.

Paul himself, when writing to Timothy wrote these famous words.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

When Paul wrote these words, the only Scripture that was available to the church was the Old Testament. For Paul then, the Old Testament Scriptures are profitable and enable the man of God to be trained and fully equipped for every good work. Consequently as Greg Bahnsen points out in By this Standard “If we disregard any portion of the Bible we will – to that extent – fail to be thoroughly furnished for every good work. If we ignore certain requirements laid down by the Lord in the Bible our instruction in righteousness will be incomplete.“

Certainly, more could be said on the role of the Old Testament, and particularly the Law in the life of the Christian, but at the very least we should be very sceptical of those who would seek to denigrate Old Testament Scripture as irrelevant for the Christian.

Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9 – Scripture Interprets Scripture

2 Comments

The week has flown by and we are back to Wednesday again which means Westminster Confession of Faith day! Last week we focused on the authority of the original languages. While these are the final authority, we learnt that good translations in the language of ordinary people are good and necessary. Today we look at the penultimate point in the first section of the Confession ‘Of the Holy Scriptures’ and our key focus today is the way Scripture is its own interpreter.

IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

What do we learn here? Firstly, that Scripture interprets Scripture. We have seen hints of this in WCF 1.7 where we learned of the perspicuity of Scripture. The “things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation“ are clear to such a degree that ordinary people can by ordinary means of careful reading understand the Scriptures. The point made here is related. We do not need an authoritative Church to interpret Scripture for us. The Scriptures are authoritative and we look to them to understand them! Note for example how Paul charged Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:15 to work diligently to be a man who rightly handles the Word of Truth. In Acts, the Berean Christians were noted for their noble-mindedness when Paul preached to them. What did they do? They examined the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul was teaching was what the Scriptures taught (Acts 17:11).

Secondly, we are informed in passing that there is one right and true sense of any Scripture. Wilkinson in his study of the Confession mentions that medieval scholars spoke of four levels of meaning in a text, and there was a tendency to allegorise Scripture which led to a twisting of Scripture by some to make it say whatever they already believed. This ought to be avoided. Even today, in some Christian circles the tendency to allegorise is a problem. I remember preaching a sermon on David and Goliath and after the service a man came up to me and explained to me the real meaning of the five smooth stones. The details are no longer clear in my mind, but I do remember him speaking of the smooth stones and the many aeons of water and physical weathering and hitting up against other rocks that made them ready to be used by David in his takedown of Goliath. God’s works in our lives to make us smooth stones ready for his use. What he said was not bad or evil, but clearly not what the passage is about.

How do we understand what a given Scripture is saying? We must interpret it in a literal manner. And here, Wilkinson is again helpful. Some of our godly brothers misunderstand the meaning of literal and take it to mean literalistic and they tend to approach Scripture in a wooden way. A literalistic reading might argue that the Scripture teaches the earth is flat because four corners of the earth are spoken of, or that people will literally have 666 written on their hands and forehead. What we mean by literal is taking into account the genre and understanding how language is used within this genre to determine what the author intended to say. It will not do to read, “He kicked the bucket” and assume a literalistic interpretation of a chap booting a poor defenceless bucket. A lot more could be said here, and perhaps in the future we will look at this in more detail.

Finally, we are given the well-known principle that we must let the places where Scripture speaks more clearly be our guide. Many have taken obscure passages out of context, misinterpreted them and made whole doctrines out of them. This will not do. We must let all of Scripture help us interpret any one Scripture, allowing the more clear to help us determine the meaning of the less clear.