COVID Vaccine Mandates Make No Sense
Being fully vaccinated against COVID-19 does not make you safe against transmitting the virus to others, so what's the point of a vaccine mandate? Unlike the classic childhood mumps, measles, rubella (MMR) vaccine, which prevents measles with 97% efficacy, the COVID "vaccine" is different — the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is 95% effective against symptomatic COVID-19 infection. The measles vaccine is expected to give lifelong protection against measles — meaning you're now free from getting or spreading measles. Prior to general use, the Pfizer mRNA COVID vaccine demonstrated two months of protection against symptomatic COVID-19.
What happens after two months? Last week, an Israeli hospital reported that 59% of positive hospitalized patients were fully vaccinated. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (DPH) reports 30% of positive county cases were among the fully vaccinated in late July, an increase from 20% of cases in June. A Dutch study demonstrated that breakthrough infections are infectious — of the 25,000 healthcare workers (HCW) who were PCR positive, live virus was cultured from nasopharyngeal swabs in 69% of vaccinated and 85% of unvaccinated patients. Has the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine efficacy against symptomatic infection dropped from 95% since trial results were reported in November 2020? Recent Mayo Clinic Health data measure Pfizer's vaccine at 42% efficacy against symptomatic infection in July.
If we're serious about "stopping the spread" of COVID, why ignore a group with better protection than the vaccinated group? Those with a prior COVID infection show consistently better immunity against re-infection than the vaccinated, yet they are strangely ignored by those pushing a vaccine mandate. A recent Israeli health care study shows 1,300% better protection from natural immunity than vaccination. In the Cleveland Clinic staff study, no previously infected unvaccinated staff tested positive, while 15 vaccinated staff without prior infection tested positive over a five-month period. This study suggests that natural immunity lasts 10+ months and produces more effective immunity than vaccine-induced immunity. Also, New York's Rockefeller University study compares antibody response of vaccinated and recovered patients to conclude that "SARS-Co-V-2 infection produces neutralizing memory antibodies that evolve over a year ... [with] greater potency and breadth than antibodies elicited by vaccination." Not surprising that natural immunity would be superior after Singaporean researchers detected memory T cells in SARS-recovered patients seventeen years following the 2003 SARS outbreak.
If there were a test that showed freedom from spreading the virus, that would be antibody levels. The FDA dismisses the importance of antibody levels — its website states that "antibody testing is not currently recommended to assess immunity." At the same time, the FDA relies on those antibody levels to document immune responses to add new groups to a vaccine approval license. The FDA did not require Pfizer-BioNTech to show the efficacy of the vaccine in the 12+ population. They required them to show only that the antibody levels achieved by 12- to 15-year-olds were at least as good as that of 16+-year-olds. With the recent apparent FDA approval of one mRNA vaccine, why not release the Pfizer trial data on the 2.2% who showed antibodies prior to the vaccine? Why not update the data to show us breakthrough infections in the trial's vaccine arm at six months?
What does a vaccine mandate achieve? Recently, New York City (NYC) and San Francisco (S.F.) residents are requiring people to show proof of vaccination to enter an indoor restaurant, bar, museum, or movie theater. At the time of the announcement, 78% of S.F.'s residents and 64% of NYC residents are eligible to engage in normal indoor life. Hundreds of universities are mandating vaccination as a condition to return to campus. Many governors, after mandating vaccines for public servants, are asking private companies to mandate vaccines to return to work or as a condition of employment. We know that restricting an indoor venue to vaccinated people doesn't create a zero COVID zone. Are they, like Virginia Democrat Terry McAuliffe, asking businesses to mandate COVID shots to "make life difficult" for the unvaccinated? Should the "unvaccinated" be second-class citizens?
Why not exempt those with natural immunity, who gain no benefit from vaccination? Why not exempt children from vaccination, since a fully vaccinated 70-year-old has a higher risk of spreading infection than an unvaccinated child? Will I revert to unvaccinated status if I don't get a booster shot in October? Given that both vaccinated and unvaccinated positives are both potentially infectious, and many have pre-existing immunity stronger than vaccine-induced immunity, segregation by vaccine status makes no sense.
Jamaica Plain is a pseudonym.
Image via Public Domain Pictures.
To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.