The mandates never made any sense because the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity and it's certainty doesn't reduce the spread enough to have a significant effect on the number of cases.
The idea everyone needed to have it is not based on any scientific evidence. There is no evidence to suggest it provides any additional protection against severe disease and death, after someone has already been exposed to the virus. Someone who's already had the virus, then recovered would be perfectly rational in refusing the vaccine, because there's no evidence of any benefit. They FDA might as well have just told everyone, who caught it, to take ivermectin. It has the same level of evidence to support it as vaccinating those with natural immunity.
"Sterilising immunity" is almost impossible to prove because you have to demonstrate that an infection never occurred. All you can observe are symptoms. Some vaccines are more effective than others.
But we know the vaccine doesn't induce sterilising immunity, because those who've had it clearly continue to get infected. It was pretty obvious fairly early on, it wasn't going to stop the pandemic. When Alpha hit, we knew it was mutating to become more infectious, then Delta had sufficient immune escape to ensure it would slowly spread, even if everyone were vaccinated overnight and Omicron just spread like wildfire.
The idea everyone needed to have it was based on the scientific evidence available at the time.
Taking the vaccine after natural immunity has mostly worn off is effective and has been proven to work.
No it was not based on any credible scientific evidence. The vaccine may boost antibody titres, but that doesn't last long and there's no evidence it offers any additional benefit, in terms of protection against severe disease and death. The body produces memory T-cells which provide long lived protection against severe disease and death. Don't forget, getting infected isn't a problem, so long as it's mild.
There has been no randomised, placebo-controlled trial into whether vaccines provide any benefit in those who have natural immunity. None whatsoever. The evidence to support it is no greater than that for ivermectin. Now I wouldn't listen to anyone advising me to take that either, unless I had worms.
The risk vs benefit analysis depends on the individual.
True. And that's why in my country older people were prioritized when the vaccine was first rolled out.
But there is still a positive benefit vs risk for all adults, but it just isn't as large. So to refuse the vaccine as an adult is just foolishness, paranoia, or the inability to understand statistics.
Then why were people who had never been infected and more vulnerable, put before those with natural immunity? It didn't make sense to vaccinate a 60 year old who had the disease a few weeks ago, before a 50 year old with no prior infection.
There clearly is not a positive risk-vs-benefit for all adults. Suggesting everyone take this vaccine, irrespective of health and natural immunity, is just as illogical as someone refusing it, when the data suggests they would benefit. There's no reason why a healthy 18 year old man, with natural immunity should take this vaccine. None at all. If he's already survived the disease, there's absolutely no plausible reason why it would be more severe when he catches it again. None at all. Even the tiniest risk of adverse events is unacceptable.
Fortunately there are some sane doctors around. My bother had a bad case of COVID-19, back in summer 2021, when unvaccinated. No he didn't refuse, he had physical trauma and was advised to delay vaccination for a couple of weeks. He was only 37 and the virus got into his heart, triggering two big heart attacks. He had to have a stent put in and will be on medication for the rest of his life. His cardiologist told him not to take any of the COVID-19 vaccines, because there no proof of any benefit has he has natural immunity and the vaccine has a significant, risk of giving him myocarditis or pericarditis. I don't think for a second his doctor is an anti-vaxer, just looked at the evidence available and came to a rational decision. Anyway, my brother got COVID-19 again a year later, had a stinking flu-like illness and recovered with no long term effects.
I have no problem with vaccines. They have saved millions of lives, but as with every other intervention, there needs to be strong evidence to support it and in this case many health authorities have badly let us down.
..Remove the specific organ transplant thing and substitue for basic (no covid related) health issues. Once again, people and even politicans advocated for this "cancellation" of basic health rights. In that case it's absolutely trivial to argue that an unvaccinated person equally paid their taxes and is therefore completely entitled to the equal health care they paid for...
So an alcoholic who requires a liver transplant but refuses to give up drinking should have the same right to an organ as someone who does not engage in behavoir that will likely reduce the value of that organ? Or a smoker? Being unvaccinated isn't a "health issue" as that implies that it is some kind of disease, or something that is out of ones control - it is a choice, and one proven to improve health outcomes.
I am not suggesting that all unvaccinated people should have had all operations or treatments denied, but you specifically said organ transplants - where organs are in short supply, and all transplants carry with them a lifelong obligation to specific behavoir and habits (as well as lifelong immunosuppressants). Vaccination is especially important for organ recipients because of this - the risk/benefit equation is very much skewed. The waiting lists for organs are long and must be prioritised to ensure the maximum benefit. Whilst there are myriad reasons for a person to move up/down the lists - actively refusing to fulfill an obligation that improves the outcome or increases the success of the operation will likely put you down the list.
In a society with a national health service, there is an obligation to provide the best "bang for your buck" - and that includes not wasting extremely valuable/scarce resources on those who refuse treaments on ideological grounds. That isn't all treaments, just those that are the most expensive/valuable.
There was also the madness of people refusing blood from those who had been vaccinated. You couldn't make it up.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
