If the notion that the Alec Baldwin shooting on the set of Rust in Santa Fe County, New Mexico served as a fitting metaphor for this year, the New York Times put that to rest when it posed the question: "How did a gun that contained a fatal projectile get into the hands of an actor who believed it was safe, when an array of safeguards should have made that impossible?"

The same could be said for those "safe and effective" vaccines that are now universally understood as not preventing the spread of COVID.

The gun used by Baldwin was handed to him by the film's assistant director, David Halls.  He had taken the gun off a cart, where it was placed by the movie's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed.  When Halls gave the gun to Baldwin, he told the actor the gun was "cold," which means safe to use, with no live ammunition.

Isn't this just fitting for a year when we, like Alec Baldwin, are assured that the thing they want to give us is "safe"?

We're constantly being told the vaccine rushed through the development and approval process is safe and effective.  Should we be surprised that it doesn't even prevent vaccinated people from getting or spreading COVID?

Vaccinated people are dying from breakthrough cases, yet authorities insist that it should be mandated and people should be coerced into getting it.

Just as Baldwin's film crew walked off the set hours before tragedy, thousands and thousands of health care workers are refusing to get vaccinated and are willing to walk away from jobs and careers they love in the process.  Many more across all sectors and across the country have followed suit.

Teenagers not even at risk for COVID are experiencing serious adverse effects from the vaccine.  Yet health officials continue to beat the drum, telling us these situations are "extremely rare."

Aren't killings on movie sets extremely rare?  Is that acceptable?

The truth is, as more and more young people get vaccinated, the numbers of those adverse incidents are on the rise.

As of September 24, 2021, over a month ago, the VAERS system for reporting vaccine side-effects counted 752,803 adverse reactions to the vaccine.  And that's just what has been reported.

That's quickly moving away from the "extremely rare" classification.

Scientists and doctors who raise concerns are silenced on the internet.  They are bullied by their professional associations.  Politicians and government bureaucrats are making decisions for individuals that doctors typically help patients make in private consultation, one on one.

Employers, with no understanding of individual employees' personal situations, are cookie-cutter mandating a drug with no long-term history.  The government is doing the same.  An entire ecosystem of coercion is in place to force resistant populations to inject something they don't want and, thanks to superior natural immunity, millions don't need.

It's almost as if Gutierrez-Reed were making health policy for the nation.  But she's not.  It's almost as if an assistant movie director with no understanding of the risks were giving us the shot, assuring us it's safe.  But he's not.

This is no movie set. The people in charge aren't inexperienced creatives.

Yet the people in charge have accelerated protocols beyond the norm.  They're making decisions that are not informed by long-term trials and treating implementation as a trial unto itself.

All the time, we're being assured that the jab is not only "safe and effective," but required.

It almost feels as if we have a gun to our heads, doesn't it?

Tim O'Brien is a veteran corporate communications consultant and crisis communicator who operates O'Brien Communications in Pittsburgh.  Twitter: @OBrienPR.

Images: Stockvault/Pixabay

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.