Immunity

Immunity is evasive when muddled.

If this was 2015 and I was excited to share my familiar Illinois world with the online community, vaccine-preventable disease would take center stage. Probably after my Tom’s English muffin. And probably with a little Austrian kindergarten cop nod.

This isn’t 2015.

The world is much larger for me. International complexities once so vague have become much sharper. Government’s dedicated partnerships with the tech guys have only restricted foot travels overseas; they have not protected me from other aspects of places like Vienna.

And this gained experience is how it should be. It’s my story with the world. A good risk to ensure a better future.

Like vaccine-preventable disease education, tailoring a message to get the point across should always be both personal and to the point. Therefore, the easter eggs and metaphors so common in my writing can be saved for another reflection, another post.

To the point.

Immunity through vaccine can sometimes be anticipated, calculated and formulaic. Immunity through vaccine can sometimes be unpredictable or muddled, though, and this reality often drives speculation of an amateurish crude system. Many scientists like to claim that it will take years of data for unpredictable vaccines to be predictable. This isn’t always true though, because efficacy of vaccines like the flu shot are all over the place. Immunity to the influenza is also all inexact. The definition of a vaccine that “works” also changes depending on social objective. Unfortunately, when public health appallingly changes the definitions related to vaccine, like that of breakthrough disease, amateur and crude reflection prevails. It is wonderful when vaccines prevent hospitalizations, yet this change in definition of efficacy has not solved for immunity. Movable goal posts, alongside an exclusive industry of decision-makers, create byproducts that include distrust and a very sick population.

Like many public health professionals, I hold measles and polio vaccines in highest regard. We do not have to keep revisiting immunity asks for individuals when succinct, timed and limited doses provide precise wellness. Perhaps because we do so well with the ones in highest regard, or perhaps because this is the way it’s always been, I accepted the muddled, sometime poor-performing vaccines as the best we could do. For example, we’ll just have to revisit immunity over and over and over again with some flu shots. There isn’t really any guarantee on total protection nor on resolution of the efficacy issue. Moreover, the desperate and glaring need for improvement on the immunity path is overshadowed by a reality of this is just the way it is.

To the point: Geopolitical immunity is muddled, too.

Geopolitical immunity may have been designed for anticipated, calculated and formulaic paths forward. Diplomatic immunity may protect well in wartime, conflict and tension. It is evident that our world has tremendous opportunity to improve immunity issues, however. I do not need to detail a litany of unfair geopolitical immunity cases. I also do not need to detail times a home country has waived immunity. To describe it here would paint an inaccurate picture anyway, since the exclusive industries of decision-makers move goal posts without public transparency.

We should not have to keep revisiting immunity asks and issues. There should be a succinct, timed and precise process. However, serious geopolitical immunity issues result in a very sick population.

Messy geopolitical immunity perpetuates injustice. Domestically, issues with law enforcement or government official immunity are unjust. Internationally, issues with government official or royalty immunity are unjust. Geopolitical immunity issues taunt injustice, injustice is unhealthy, and I don’t need to detail cases to argue the importance of justice to society.

Muddled geopolitical immunity issues spread a false sense of security. Payback, reciprocated abuse or others taking justice into their own hands all result from a little immunity unjustly applied. In other words, the immunity wanes pretty quickly.

Chaotic geopolitical immunity issues divide. People begin to doubt entrusting diplomacy to an isolated group of individuals or career professionals, especially if the professionals' agency is involved in messy immunity. This type of segregation frustrates domestically, and the frustration creates a domino effect when domestic politics become a barrier to foreign relations.

Careless geopolitical immunity can be harmful to those assured of immunity. Waning immunity isn’t only vulnerable to external forces; internal forces can break down. Moral injury may or may not be a factor to the internal heavy weights of guilt or continued thrill-seeking. Training and administration also slides when there aren’t consequences to unprofessionalism, and this harms prospective professionals by way of neglect. Careful geopolitical immunity, with consequences to actions, nurtures.

*On a tangent, one could use diplomat, security, peace officer or military examples. Authentically, I’ll point to the United States Central Intelligence Agency (an agency that represents us, not the other way around). If the ridiculous notion that a US citizen can do whatever they want because they are affiliated with one agency spreads, harm spreads. It is abusive and neglectful to train and manage people to believe they will not experience consequence. It is also abusive and neglectful to those they partner with. Allowing a self-inflicting, nasty culture to spread across borders and influence international peers furthers the harm. As much as some would love to believe the old CIA culture remains intact, and as much as others would love to believe the old CIA culture is extinct, it’s probably somewhere in the middle. A slow contagiousness of zero-consequence, based on agency association, is a geopolitical immunity mess. Even if behind-the-scenes refs eventually attempt to even the score, allowing a few injustices as trade-offs for assets, information, or a mission can be harmful. ?Careless geopolitical immunity, especially based on agency affiliation, is abusive and negligent to the agents of the agency. An agency that represents us, not the other way around.

Messy geopolitical immunity allows for mediocre intelligence and international relations. This is just the way it is doesn’t only apply to haphazard geopolitical immunity; it applies to the poor strategic operations themselves. Why should we accept half-assed operations that allow for unprofessional hires or unprofessional plans? We shouldn’t.

I’ve challenged several mediocre, amateur actions with my own gained experience. Yes, the ridiculous car theft, in which the agents left my Beatles-loving uncle’s monopoly game strewn all over the San Francisco sidewalk, was embarrassing for them. Especially because they trashed trust and failed to just ask me for details or assistance. However, the exchange of my private life to other governments has also been spectacular to witness. Either the US has difficulty understanding who this country represents or the US unwisely uses private citizen data as a means to foster international relations; neither of these unimpressive probabilities is strategic. And neither is a replacement for direct communication with me.

We shouldn't accept poor and unprofessional operations, yet we also shouldn't take on additional burden. If challenging ignorant or poor operations was our full-time jobs, perhaps we could be more tolerate. We have other work to do, however. And truly, mediocre international relations and mediocre intelligence can be improved by removing haphazard immunity and placing required operational improvements under the rightful managers.

It should be embarrassing that the world rolls their eyes, wholly unsurprised that the CIA messed up vaccine trust for their own agency’s agenda. It should be so embarrassing to the CIA and the United States that a global pact on separating healthcare from geopolitics is rapidly implemented. Apparently, poor strategies are just the way it is, harming everyone, and harming the unnurtured CIA.

.................................................................................................................................

My positive influence is what I can offer to the issue of geopolitical immunity. I cannot change geopolitical immunity policies or procedures, yet I can be accountable for my influence.

To be honest, sometimes influence may not matter. When placed in an unfavorable setup January 2017 apartment, I changed up a little favorite. Halting the Thomas bread that accompanied me from Chicago to Marriott Minneapolis to Hermosa halted my acceptance of the housing situation. Still, the english muffin is just enough and prevents moderation dementia when I look at bread. Ironically, my loved one pivoted to daily english muffins about a year later. He remains unaware of our matched breakfast choice; there was no influence either way.

So maybe, like bread favorites, everyone's already on the same page. Just the same, my positive influence is what I can offer.

I can remind government leadership that there are flaws to immunity between Presidents and citizens, and these flaws are unwelcome. They are unwelcome on Fifth Avenue, they are unwelcome outside of Quantico, and they are unwelcome anywhere else a President would criminally indirectly allow for the homicide of a father figure. The flaws are unwelcome, fix them.

I can nurture. I can encourage and unite for healthcare. For example, I can advocate world health with direct touch to other countries while also setting boundaries. A United States that shares my unconsented, daily private information with any other government is a United States that doesn’t have an optimal international relations strategy, and it is a United States in need of improved management.

I can also share personal information publicly, at my discretion, and I do so. I can also remind agencies that if they thrive on solid bonds, they’ll thrive on good unity and on making our world better through integrity. This feels good for agents because it is good.

We have a problem with the definition of immunity, with the understanding of immunity, with waning immunity and with home-grown solutions to immunity issues.

We have become accustomed to living around flawed geopolitical immunity. We are accustomed to the tension that results from moved goal posts and exclusive decision-makers. And this acceptance has resulted in an unhealthy population.

The world can do better by managing and preventing issues that require geopolitical immunity asks. We can do better by sharpening who gets immunity and how it’s defined. Immunity shouldn’t be evasive. And we can do better by asking our own agencies to change the culture of accountability in their organizations

I’m not a policeman.

And I’m not a princess.

And neither of those two populations should be taught that they are immune to consequences; they aren’t.

If you'd like to get to know me a little more, perhaps we do so on a long walk in Vienna. I'll pack the english muffins.

We can sharpen hope from even the dullest of pasts.

A nurtured world is a healthy world, and a loved world.