More Clarity, Please, About Vaccinations for COVID Survivors

by James A. Bacon

Since late January, when COVID-19 vaccines became available to the general public in Virginia, 99.4% of the cases, 99% of hospitalizations, and 99.3% of deaths have occurred in people who have not been vaccinated, according to the Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association (VHHA).

“The scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that the COVID-19 vaccines prevent people from becoming seriously ill, requiring hospitalization, or dying from the virus, as well as spreading it to others,” states the hospital lobby organization in a statement released this morning.

VHHA now supports hospitals and health systems amending their vaccine policies to require vaccinations for employees. Acknowledging that each hospital and health system is “unique,” VHHA leaves it up to each organization to determine the appropriate time to implement a requirement.

I have no doubts about the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines approved for use in the United States. For many segments of the population (including 68-year-olds such as myself), it makes eminent sense to get vaccinated. My big question is whether it makes sense for people who have already survived the virus — at least 685,000 confirmed cases in Virginia — and who can demonstrate that they are protected by antibodies.

From what I understand, there is little question that COVID-19 survivors have antibodies which confer resistance to the virus. Sure, COVID survivors occasionally contract the virus a second time, just as happens with vaccinated people, but such instances are rare and the outcomes less dire. A bigger question is how long does the immunity last — a few months? A year? A lifetime? Not enough time has passed to have a conclusive answer. Of course, the same can be said of the vaccines.

Given the uncertainty, it seems reasonable to ask COVID survivors to take finger-prick antibody tests every so often. Antibody tests are not perfect. They give occasional false positives. But two tests approved by the FDA are good between 93% and 97% of the time, according to press reports. Next question: Is that good enough?

Let’s say a hospital employee has survived COVID and an antibody test confirms that he or she still has a level of antibodies high enough to confer the same level of resistance as a vaccination does. There is a risk, albeit a very small one, of suffering a significant side effect from the vaccination. I have yet to see a discussion in the popular press — and nothing in the VHHA press release — how either COVID survivors or society at large are any better off from getting a shot in such a case.

Perhaps that evidence exists. But it hasn’t been widely disseminated. Given the fact that we’re talking about 685,000 COVID survivors in Virginia alone, the issue is hardly esoteric.

I have no problem with the VHHA urging people to get vaccinated. Go ahead and urge away, and while you’re urging, present the data that might prove persuasive to vaccine-hesitant COVID survivors. And I’ll concede that hospitals may be within their legal rights to require vaccinations as a condition of employment. But there is a world of difference between such compulsion being legal and being ethically justifiable.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

82 responses to “More Clarity, Please, About Vaccinations for COVID Survivors”

  1. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    Being vaccinated provides no benefits beyond the vaccination. I have been vaccinated for months. I carry my vaccination card with me. I just returned from a flight to New Orleans. Did I have to wear a mask at the rental car area, on the rental car bus, in the airport and on the plane? Oh yes. No different than if I had refused to be vaccinated.

    At some point a vaccinated person represents no more of a risk than that of spreading the seasonal flu. At that point the vaccinated person should be able to show their vaccination card and stop wearing masks.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I just this morning spoke with a young man who was one of the very first cases, December 2019, and when sick it was all a mystery. He was extremely sick and hospitalized. Then later in 2020 they got his permission to test his materials again and confirmed he had COVID, the first iteration and the deadliest strain. Summer of 2020, he got it again. No 106 fever, but 101. No hospitalization. But without doubt he had a second case.

      This argument is over. Previous infection is not perfect protection. He is now fully vaccinated and returns to U of South Carolina in a few weeks. He’s in perfect health, no co-morbidity.

      As to the need for masks when vaccinated, I dislike it, but I understand that in confined spaces (airplane) or in medical settings, the only way to get the unvaccinated to comply is to make everybody comply. Is it really necessary for me? Nope. I hope they don’t try to push us back into general panic, but it’s not looking good.

      The way out is getting the shots. Jim, you are an impediment to that outcome. Not sure why you want to keep doing this, and nobody reading is really undecided, but you and your like are going to bring this back. Thanks so much.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        If previous infection doesn’t confer protection than a vaccine will not either. They are biologically the same thing, one is just a shortcut so you don’t get sick to the other.

        The young individual unless tested negative in between just fought the battle with the same illness his immune system suppressed in 2019.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7736956/

        Vaccines are wonderful and people should get them but there are to many people with zero medical or biological knowledge makings statements or claims (to include talking heads).

        Beyond the fact they are not at current FDA approved with a projected timeline to that approval of not being until January of next year.

        So until they can study the efficacy and or deleterious effects of these new vaccines (at least a year) we should probably hold off on the word “mandatory”.

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        All risk is relative. Every time I drive my car or take a flight I take a risk. In response to the risks I am required to fasten my seatbelts on takeoff and landing as well as to have airbags in my car (as far as I know, you can’t buy a new car without airbags).

        Influenza and pneumonia killed 49,783 Americans in 2019. There are vaccines for both. Neither vaccine is required. I assume that masks would hinder the spread of influenza and pneumonia yet masks have never been required during even a bad seasonal flu season (although nobody would stop you from wearing a mask if you’d like).

        I think it’s incumbent on our political leaders to define the risk levels at which mask wearing will no longer be mandated.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          Interesting, you talk about individual risk in the same breadth you talk about being forced to buckle up.

          And now, you want the govt to do what? tell people what the “risks” are of not buckling up but let them decide that risk for themselves?

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            It’s a question of mandates commensurate with the risk. On an airplane an unbuckled passenger could certainly end up airborne during turbulence and land on a buckled passenger. The risks of injury justify the mandate to buckle up during takeoff and landing.

            Where is the proportionate risk for a fully vaccinated person to be mandated to wear a mask?

            If the unvaccinated were forced to wear masks while the vaccinated were allowed to go mask-free you’d see a lot more people get vaccinated.

            As it is, we needlessly punish the vaccinated for the unvaccinated’s stubbornness.

            AS a fully vaccinated person, who does my mask protect and what are the odds that the protection is necessary?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            THe problem is YOUR “proportionate risk”
            is not someone elses and that’s what leads to rules that are arbitrary.

            That’s the very reason why we do not leave it up to individuals to decide.

            The idiots will refuse then everyone else will follow along.

            We KNOW that screwing around with a cell phone while driving is exceptionally dangerous to both the owner and innocents, so what happens if you leave it up to individuals?

            I don’t like these kinds of rules anymore than you or others but what’s the alternative?

            no rules?

          3. WayneS Avatar

            “The idiots will refuse then everyone else will follow along.”

            Your arrogance and condescension are growing.

      3. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Jim is not alone. In fact, he’s part of a significant “herd” if you will.

        But surely you DO understand it – you’ve made similar arguments, no?

        It’s part skepticism of the science and those who purport to speak “science”.

        and it’s part “liberty”, the “right” to not have the government “force” you to do something – even if public health is the reason.

        Put these two together – and the folks who feel this way are in Jim and your tent more than those nasty progressives tents. (and yes, I DO acknowledge there are some of them in the progressive tents but not the ones who are making a big stink and making it part of the culture war.

        no?

        At least now, you DO see this and are speaking out about it!

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          None of what you just stated is “science”, it’s a logical fallacy to to tune of argumentum ad populum.

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Why do you care? Any American who wants the COVID vaccination can get one. Those who refuse are aware of the risks. Why do you insist on telling people what to do? Would you make cigarette smoking illegal? Why not? Second hand smoke kills non-smokers every year. Why do you tolerate people harming themselves with tobacco but not by refusing the COVID-19 vaccinations?

          I’m vaccinated, why should I keep wearing the mask? The odds of me having the disease are remarkably low.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            For the same reason, I support stop lights and stop signs and polio and other vaccines.

            For the same reason, I support outlawing smoking in public places .

            When you engage in behaviors than can endanger others and your excuse is that you have a “right” – say to smoke in a restaurant – you end up with rules – not MY rules, OUR rules that deal with people who will endanger others and call it their “risk”.

            You have to wear a mask because the folks who are unvaccinated refuse to wear one and are willing to endanger others , no?

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            “You have to wear a mask because the folks who are unvaccinated refuse to wear one and are willing to endanger others , no?”

            I’m vaccinated. Who am I endangering?

            Let me ask a hypothetical … if everybody was vaccinated would anybody have to be forced to wear a mask?

            I assume you’d say “no”. Why? Because the vaccinated don’t pose a risk significant enough to require mask wearing.

            Is there some chance that I could still get infected post-vaccination? I guess. Is there some chance I could get the seasonal flu and spread it after I got the flu vaccine? Sure.

            Are you ready to make mask wearing a permanent mandate?

            I certainly seems so.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The reason for the masks is that we know the folks who will not get vaccinated will also refuse to wear masks and that can lead to infecting those with vaccinations and prior covid?

            The answer is yes – read the news. The epidemiologists are concerned about this very thing.

            This virus is actively replicating and mutating and in doing so it’s generating even more contagious and deadly variants.

            That’s how pandemics work.

            You compare this to the flu.

            Do you want Version 2 of COVID come Dec or January that can infect more and more of those who were previously vaccinated ( like the flu works) ?

            Covid is not the flu despite what some of the “anti” folks are insisting….

          4. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            I’m vaccinated! Who does my mask protect? I say nobody. I have to show government issued ID just to get on an airplane. Fine, but once I show it I can board. I have government issued ID showing that I am fully vaccinated. Why can’t I show that and not have to wear a mask?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If two unmasked folks walk onto a plane, do we assume that both are vaccinated?

            The problem with your “vaccinated” ID is:

            1. – they can be (and will be) forged
            2. – Some elected leaders – GOvernors are outlawing them.

            this is the problem. You have opposition. You have solutions. The next opponent to your right vetoes your solution so both of you end up being opposed to any/all solutions.

            that’s the essential nature of the “opposition” these days.

            There is no agreement from the opponents on alternatives. All alternatives are opposed.

          6. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            As far as forged documents, drivers licenses and passports can be forged too. I will agree that our government did a God awful job of documenting the vaccinations. The little white CDCV card I got could be forged by a smart 12 year old.

            As far as banning vaccine passports, I think that’s kind of dumb.

            The real question isn’t the passport but what you are allowed to do if you are vaccinated.

            Washington State has an interesting policy …

            While such passports are not required in Washington, new workplace guidelines released by the Washington Department of Labor & Industries on May 21 note that fully vaccinated employees do not have to wear a mask or socially distance as long as they “either sign a document attesting to their status or provide proof of vaccination.”

            That’s the right idea.

            In the case of UVa students – the unvaccinated should have to wear masks all the time they are in public, perhaps they should not be able to attend crowded athletic events, etc.

            There are ways to get people to do what government wants short of mandates.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Try Texas and Florida on that.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Fear Porn: ” Delta variant fears send Dow tumbling more than 700 points in worst one-day decline of 2021
            Global markets fall sharply amid growing anxiety about surging coronavirus cases and their potential to derail the economic recovery”

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, it depends how much of their opposition is on “principle” and how much can be “bought” – like a thousand dollar, 500, 250 tax credit? 😉 What’s that joke: ” We’ve determined what you are , we’re now trying to figure out the price”.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Well, aside from a near zero chance of hospitalization and death, you’re right, there’s no benefit.

      Cheer up. When enough people have the Delta variant because they didn’t vaccinate that they produce yet other variants perhaps there will be no benefit at all.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        I SWEAR that I remember than DJ used to advocate that all healthy people continue on and if they got the virus – no big deal cuz it only killed the older and those with co-morbidities.

        Surprised he got the shot! Not sure when his thinking changed!

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          What I said was that risk taking was a personal decision. I still maintain that. A young person who knows the risks of COVID-19 should have been allowed to live their lives if they are willing to take the risks. Older people who don’t want to take the risks should stay home. It’s not all that hard. My now 93-year old mother was in lockdown for months. That made sense for her. I avoided restaurants and crowds for months. That made sense for me. My 20-something sons went out and socialized. That made sense for them.

          As a 62-year old with (treatable) high blood pressure I am in the demographic that needs to exercise some caution. Fine. That’s what I did.

          Getting the shot was a personal decision. I’m glad that I decided to do that. But how is it my place to demand that a 25 year old who has recovered from COVID get the shot?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well, it sounds like you did take that position – did you use the phrase “herd immunity” when you advocated folks do their own thing?

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            No. I never said it would be good for lots of people to get infected so we could achieve herd immunity.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            well I did not say that either. I said that I thought you advocated that the young and healthy go about their normal lives and the sicker and older stay home and away from public activities – and herd immunity would logically follow. (no vaccines at that time).

            I can see where you’re not going to admit it so I do apologize.

          4. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            I wanted the young and healthy to make their own (hopefully informed) decisions. I wanted the middle aged and elderly to make their own (hopefully informed) decisions.

            Arbitrary rules like banning the serving of alcohol after 10pm were ridiculous.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          It’s only Kerry who thought all of this was silly to save 1,000,000 people.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            My bad! (but I think she had some company).

          2. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            The way to save lives was to focus on the most vulnerable. The odds of dying from COVID (once infected) were 600 times higher for 85+ year olds than 18-29 year olds.

            75-84: 230X
            65-74: 95X
            50-64: 35X
            40-49: 10X
            30-39: 4X
            5-17: <1X

            Almost 40% of the COVID deaths occurred in nursing homes.

            In 2017 – 2018 season 61,099 Americans die of the flu.

            In June, 2021 there were 300 daily deaths from COVID in the United States. At that rate there would be about 100,000 COVID deaths per year.

            When does the COVID situation reach a point where it is no more deadly than the seasonal flu?

            150 deaths per day?

            We’re at 273 per day (seven day moving average) now.

            At what point is it safe enough to end the mandates remembering that anybody who wants to wear a mask can wear a mask, anybody who wants a vaccination can get one and anybody who wants to isolate can isolate?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            The problem with the nursing homes was that not only were they vulnerable, but the caregivers also lived in the regular world when not working and some of them worked two jobs at different nursing homes.

            How do you fix that?

            How do you “fix” school teachers who have comorbidities, or for that matter almost anyone in the larger workforce that is older or has comorbidities?

            It’s just not feasible or practical and if that is your “solution” it’s as bad or worse than what the govt imposed because you’re really imposing also.

        3. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          You are as usual putting words in other people’s mouths. Prove it or shut the hell up, Larry.

          Interesting cite, Matt, but one case is just one case, and in that case the initial symptoms were mild. The young man I spoke with today (while I was getting some PT) ran a 106 fever in Dec. ’19 and was hospitalized for days. Not a mild case. The medical advice remains get the shot despite prior infection.

          If indeed these second cases are just the re-emergence of the initial case, isn’t preventing round 2 another reason to get the vaccine? Got an answer for that one, Matt?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Well I thought I recalled it and he can sure say he did not and I’d apologize.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Yeah, THAT’s fairness in Larry World. My lies are true if met by silence.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think it’s fair to ask DJ and I have and he yet to answer.

            I thought I remembered it.

            Easy for DJ to refute and I’m more than willing to admit error. I distinctly remember him and others here advising the older and sicker to stay home and let the young and healthy do their thing without masks or social distancing, lock-downs.

          4. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            “I distinctly remember him and others here advising the older and sicker to stay home and let the young and healthy do their thing without masks or social distancing, lock-downs.”

            On the lockdown count, you are right. On the masks and social distancing you are wrong.

            Once the risks were known and it was known that young, healthy people were unlikely to get very sick and/or die I could not accept the argument that the young and healthy needed to stay in their apartments (unemployed) to protect the elderly and inform. The elderly and infirm had the capability to isolate as they wished.

            Twenty year olds don’t get colonoscopies as a routine part of their physical exams. It’s not that they never die of colon cancer. It’s that the odds don’t justify the expense.

            Would you insist that twenty-somethings get colonoscopies because older people are susceptible to colon cancer?

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            DJ – this is a contagious virus that is actively mutating to infect more and more besides the initial phase of just older.

            Beyond that – there was no realistic way to cordon off society from older and younger, and you know that or you did after thinking on it a while.

            You just can’t wall off the older and those with comorbidities – many of who are active and vital iln the workforce and/or live with those that are.

            It’s a cockamamie idea that is totally ignorant of how pandemics work and especially so in the 21st century world.

          6. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            The seasonal flu is a contagious virus that is actively mutating to infect more people. That’s one reason why every year you get another / different seasonal flu virus vaccine.

            Anyone who wants a vaccination (in America) can get one. Anybody who wants to isolate can isolate.

            An isolated, vaccinated person is at almost no risk of any ill effects from COVID-19.

          7. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Yes, he is trying to put words in my mouth.

            I still believe that the reaction to COVID-19 by government was extreme and undifferentiated.

            What would the statistics have been if our government had immediately moved to protect those in retirement and nursing homes rather than pretending that all people are equally susceptible?

            The science very quickly identified the elderly and those with co-morbidities as the really vulnerable. Yet lockdowns were, in many places, applied without acknowledgement of the various levels of risk.

            The nursing homes needed to close, the schools needed to stay open.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            On the retirement homes – the problem was the caregivers. There was no way to protect seniors if the caregivers went home and did normal activities , caught the virus and took it back to the home.

            That’s WHY the idea of separating people into groups who would do different behaviors does not work in a pandemic.

            It’s simplistic thinking that does not work.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            IF DJ says that I did put words in his mouth, then I do apologize to him. I’m sorry DJ.

          10. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Did he test negative following his initial bout? Did he ever retest when he “believed” he had it again?

            Furthermore, if you’re going to question me instead of using “anecdotal” evidence provide a scientific citation ala ncbi.

            What you are describing is variance and we don’t make laws or policy off of variance.

          11. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            Dec 2019 was very early in the game. Is CDC recognizing USA cases started that early?

      2. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        I got vaccinated as soon as I was eligible because I believed the risks of the vaccine were far lower than the risks of COVID. My choice. In my case, an easy decision.

        But now what? I’m vaccinated. I’m very unlikely to get the disease and spread it. Who is my mask protecting?

        Masks are now to the left what MAGA hats were to the right. The difference is that the government never mandated the wearing of a MAGA hat.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Actually, I think all the rage now are the breakthroughs, which means, uh yep, you can transmit… again… unknowingly too. So, that mask protects the unvaccinated.

          In my recesses, I keep saying, “Yeah, well, serves ’em right,” except I also know that the dumb bastard might mutate it and give it back.

          Effed if we do, effed if we don’t. But, when they announce a booster, this time, I’m pushing that little ol’ lady down to get to the front of the line.

          Monday already? Wow, his widdle fingers is flyin’ on the keys today… all these placeholders in the threads, and one thumbs down on my posts that appears as soon as I post… Lurk much, arse?

          1. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Might mutate? Lord have mercy. If that’s the logic then the masks will never leave.

            It does serve the unvaccinated right. Just like the two pack a day smokers.

            It’s not my job to indemnify people from their own bad decisions.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            The clamor about “mutation” is sad at this point, viruses mutate. They mutate a lot, the ones that mutate it for good survive, the ones that don’t die out.

            None of the mutations to date (read the usatoday, Ninny posted to it’s entirety), it doesn’t arrive at his pickled conclusion.

            Yes, they become more transmissible and contagious however they don’t magically become more virulent. A virus is a living organism their goal isn’t to kill their hosts, their goal is to replicate.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You said assess your risk. Mutation is what is actually happening and it’s not hard to know of it if you are paying attention. The unvaccinated risk are at risk for causing more infections/mutations which in turn is generating new variants that can endanger even those who have had Covid or are even vaccinated.

            That’s your “informed risk” in action.

            It’s not your job to “indemnify” others, but it is your job to know and understand the threat from Covid if you truly want to make informed decisions.

            Then we have other folks who say – being informed of these evolving threats is “fear porn” and then they go quiet when it actually does play out that way.

      3. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        The fact that you claim hold an advance math degree and educated young people, yet have zero understanding of biology speaks very poorly about the VA schooling system.

        The mutations has nothing to do with antibodies or the body creating them, they deal with viral loads and how more contagious it has become.

        Simple viral biology is that a virus like Humans want to stay alive, killing off your hosts won’t allow that to happen.

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          MOST mutations, but not ALL mutations, are usually so benign.

          So, here’s the question pestering me right now, building on some things Nancy brought up long ago. What is the false positive rate on those PCR tests now, and of course isn’t it higher on the quick tests? How many of these reports of “breakthrough” cases could be those false positives, since MLB, Olympics, etc. are testing people like every freaking day….

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            No, all current mutation. The only people who’ve been running studies on them (i.e. Israel) have indicated as such.

            None of the current mutation are mutations towards circumventing antibodies previously produced.

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Again, “current” being the operative word. Are you telling me there is no example in medical science of a mutation that instead became far more deadly?

          3. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I’m not a sith I don’t deal in absolutes, but virology doesn’t expect it to become more deadly.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095397/

            The mutation is in regard to virulence not lethality.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yes Steve, they can and have, albeit we may not be the target that suffers the increase… immediately.

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/14/fact-check-viruses-can-mutate-become-more-deadly/7839167002/

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I’m gonna guess a more reputable source.
            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120126224526.htm

            OTOH, if you believe Carlson, and gang, about the Wuhan labs, then clearly they can mutate to deadly forms. That’s what Fox claims they were doing in that lab.

          6. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            Last I saw they produced 40% false positives, but less than 1% false negatives.

          7. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I like to think, “It’s a poor parasite that kills its host,” but we’ve less than 200 years studying the little beasties that HG Wells dubbed our saviors.

            As to the false positives, the tests are specific to the variants so maybe the FPs are high since the numbers are small, but I don’t know.

  2. Former FDA head Dr Scott Gottlieb said 25% of the U.S. population is at risk because 50% of people have been fully vaccinated and another 25% have had COVID-19. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9801663/Scott-Gottlieb-warns-unvaccinated-people-Delta.html)

    In other words, according to Gottlieb, COVID survivors are not at risk (or are at very low risk).

    Steve cites one case of a COVID survivor who got the virus again seven or eight months later. OK, maybe antibody protection for some people lasts only a half year. Maybe COVID survivors should get tested to see if their antibodies are holding up.

    I’m not making any dogmatic assertions here. I’m saying I’d like to see the evidence supporting the proposition that vaccinations should be mandated for COVID survivors. Some people would like to shut down the conversation, no justification needed. Well, if that is the response, I don’t find it persuasive.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      The “evidence” you are looking for is out there on GOOGLE. It’s not guaranteed to be the absolute truth from on high never to change but instead, there are scientists who say that the longer the virus is in the population, the more it will replicate and the more it will mutate and calibrate so that it will become more infectious of more folks who previously had some resistance.

      I don’t know that there will ever be enough “evidence” until after the fact, after it is too late.

      What is wrong with being prudent?

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/dr-scott-gottlieb-on-covid-previously-infected-people-would-benefit-from-vaccines.html

      “Best of both worlds,” he says. I have seen Gottlieb say more than once that those with a previous infection should still get vaccinated. I watch him on CNBC all the time. One shot rather than two, maybe, but that’s been his answer to that question. Hell, if you distrust him on that, at least do so because he’s on Pfizer’s board….His reasoning is that, as we all know, nothing is perfect.

      We could have knocked this out weeks ago, and we didn’t, so the roller coaster begins again. I agree with DJ that those who are getting sick now (except for the under-12 and those truly unable to get the shot) took their own chances and no longer should put me in a bind. But they will.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      I’m becoming curious about long term effects. Is cancer in future for those infected? There are viruses that go dorminant inside the body and *bam* 10, 30 years on… colon cancer, breast, and cervical cancer.

      Then again, maybe it moves from species to species until it really gets highly infectious and perhaps more deadly. Maybe not to us, but what happens if it decimates the bird population?

      If anyone finds out, will they tell us? Or, will it just be kept locked in a safe at Fort Detrick…

      Oh boy, this is gonna be fun!

  3. Publius Avatar

    Here is the truth – no one knows for sure.
    Covid is a new virus.
    The mRNA vaccines are new.
    We don’t have enough experience to make a definitive statement.
    There are plenty of conflicting data points…probably because different people are different!
    As an observer of history, I notice that the human race has survived…even before we had vaccines and when medicine was worse. So I have no problem with letting free people make up their own minds. Different people have different risk profiles. Their decisions can be perfectly rational from one you make even if you have very similar risk profiles. This is because of the uncertainty. Take your risk benefit calculation and one might put more to the unapproved nature of the vax, or the new mRNA technology, or less to their odds of being hospitalized, etc.

    “Normal” prior to Covid was all people had the right to refuse medical treatment up to choosing to die. Then VA passed a law for colleges that required certain vaccines. Even for those, you could claim a medical or religious exemption. These are for long-accepted. approved vaccines. Somehow, from 1986 until now, no one cared. And no one died. That is still the VA statute.

    So, if you really want people to get vaccinated with the Covid vax, try persuasion and quit telling them they are idiots. Listen to their concerns. Guess what? You might find their decisions make sense FOR THEM!

    I don’t know the stats for the exemptions for the required vaccines – I guess in the 1-5% range. Please people – get over the alternate Covid universe and let’s go back to normal life!

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      why should we “want” people to get vaccinated as opposed to them using their own reasoning to figure out they should without being “persuaded” by others they don’t like or trust?

      1. Publius Avatar

        Huh?
        Is there a rational question in there somewhere?
        Let’s start at the top.
        People have autonomy over their own bodies.
        The VA legislature decided it would require certain vax status for those attending colleges starting n 1986.
        Even then, the medical (for people who couldn’t do the vax) and religious (for people who wouldn’t – see the first point on autonomy and the 1st Amendment) exemptions existed and the world got along fine.
        There is no statutory authority under Virginia law for the Covid vax.
        There is an explicit right to refuse the EUA vax under federal law.
        The Covid vax mandates are unlawful.
        Therefore, either pass legislation or try persuasion.
        Even if the Covid vaxes get approved and are legislated, to be within historic norms, there would be a medical and religious exemption.

        Come on people – grow up! Life has uncertainty. Life has risks. Americans deal with them instead of cowering in fear.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          no. Intended to be a super simple question.

          Why should anyone have to talk “nice” to others to get them to agree to be vaccinated – in the first place, if each of us makes our own decisions based on risks we want to assume?

          Everyone should stand down and let it play out according to each individual decision.

          no?

        2. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Right! And one method of persuasion would be to let me skip the mask if I can show the flight attendant a vax card.

          The unvaxxed who fly a lot will soon come to terms with the vaccination if that was done.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            which can be easily counterfeited and we have Governors who are mandating that such cards not be required ?

            This is the problem with the “anti” folks – there are all flavors of them and they have no real consistent alternative approach – it just boils down to what each “anti” person specifies as their conditions.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        As with so many things, the freedom to be stupid is also protected in this country. I do not like government mandates. But employers can set standards for their employees and customers, and the legal advice is so can universities. Don’t want the shot? I guess the on-line options remain. As with so many things, the liability concerns are a major driver — schools can be sued if the disease spreads on their property. Our General Assembly has refused to adopt any liability protections (and obviously woke CNBC thinks that just peachy.)

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          I’d prefer that employers do things like require ongoing COVID tests for the unvaccinated rather than demand vaccination. After a few weeks of swizzling that Q-tip up you nose every other day the shots might start to look benign.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            that sounds a lot like an “end around”.

            In other words, just make onerous rules that force people to comply, no?

            That’s actually worse in some respects because it’s really still government-encouraged/sanctioned coercion, at least in my mind.

          2. WayneS Avatar

            Except when UVA does it?

          3. DJRippert Avatar
            DJRippert

            Government encouraged is a lot better than government mandated in my opinion.

            I see horrible commercials funded by the government about the health ravages of smoking cigarettes. One poor 45 year old heart attack sufferer is from Virginia.

            Good. Pushing people to be healthy is much better than making cigarettes illegal.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Govt “pushed” people to not smoke in public places because it endangered others. How did that work out? It didn’t. Govt had to implement rules because people won’t do the right thing even when they know they should. So those who were on the receiving end – demanded that the govt take action and it did.

            that’s exactly what happens when people do things that endanger others and refuse to cease behaviors that threaten others.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Who says I want them to vaccinate? Herd immunity. Herd culling. All the same to me. This could be an opportunity to raise the collective IQ.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        To a certain extent, it’s hard not to feel that way about the recalcitrant who basically say it is their “right” to take risks including those that might endanger others. Every day, we have people die and cause the deaths of others because they can’t put their cell phone down when driving.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Or their gun.

  4. Publius Avatar

    All 5 of the Texas democrats had been vaccinated and got COVID…
    https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/07/more-maskless-texas-democrats-test-positive-for-covid-19/
    Does this mean their symptoms were less? Maybe. WE DON’T KNOW.
    But, maybe, just maybe, natural immunity is better and fuller. Maybe, just maybe, letting kids get it and shake it off is the right answer – medically and as a society. You know, like Americans did when we were sane?

  5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Is Jim Bacon really 68?
    I catch up to him in a few weeks, in that case.

    For certain community groups, especially music groups, the question comes up, if everyone in the group has to be vaccinated? We have a few people saying they had COVID, so they do not want the shot.

    I think it is a legal question.
    If those people get COVID, they could try a lawsuit against the group for damages. We could try to make everyone sign a release.

    Our insurer this year dropped coverage for communicable diseases, from which I assume in the past, we had such coverage. So I guess that means the group officers could be held personally liable. Big mess.

  6. Deborah Hommer Avatar
    Deborah Hommer

    If there is a risk of injury/death, you have the right to refuse. Furthermore, people are not being informed that this is an experimental vaccine (and those who take the jab are the experiment). In addition, “Dr. Robert Malone invented the mRNA and DNA vaccine core platform technology. He has grave concerns about the lack of transparency of side effects, censoring of discussion and the lack of informed consent that these bring.

    Free SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is biologically active — contrary to initial assumptions — and causes severe problems. It is responsible for the most severe effects seen in COVID-19, such as bleeding disorders, blood clots throughout the body and heart problems. These are the same problems we now see in a staggering number of people who have received the COVID-19 “vaccine” https://www.midlandscbd.com/articles/warning-physician-who-invented-mrna-shot-speaks-out.

    Copy and pasted:
    The CDC said July 16 that since the mid-December rollout of COVID vaccines in the U.S., VAERS had received 12,313 reports of death among people who received a COVID vaccine — a sharp increase from the 6,079 U.S. deaths reported by the CDC the previous week.

    However, as of 3:30 p.m. ET on July 21, the CDC website had revised downward the number of U.S. VAERS reports related to COVID vaccination deaths — from 12,313 to 6,079 deaths occurring between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 19, 2021, Precision Vaccinations reported.

    Later that day, as of 7:30 p.m. ET, the CDC’s website showed 6,207 U.S. reports of death occurring between Dec. 14, 2020 through July 19, 2021, among people who received a COVID vaccine.

    On July 21, the CDC’s number of 6,079 coincided with what ABC News reported Wednesday as the number of U.S. deaths reported to VAERS between Dec. 14, 2020 and July 12, 2021.

    Tell Schools/Universities No Vaccine Mandates for Children/Young Adults!

    A CDC spokeswoman the number the agency displayed on its website July 16 — and continued to display until the afternoon of July 21 — was not correct.

    The July 16 number was “double” that of the previous day, so it was “definitely” incorrect,” the spokeswoman said. “We checked our stats internally and it’s only 6,000. So someone doing an update misrepresented that or made a mistake, in other words.”

    The spokeswoman was unable to say when the error would be fixed. “It’s being worked out,” she said.

    The Defender contacted the CDC for clarification, but the CDC did not respond.

    VAERS, run jointly by the CDC and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is the U.S. early warning system that monitors the safety of vaccines after they are authorized or licensed for use by the FDA. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-corrects-number-reported-deaths-vaers-covid-vaccines/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1a1d5019-b109-4576-8def-ebede71787b9

  7. Deborah Hommer Avatar
    Deborah Hommer

    From the Epoch Times:

    Nonprofit Sues HHS to Immediately Stop Emergency Use Authorization of COVID-19 Vaccines
    Lawsuit citing whistleblower’s claim that the true deaths following vaccination are much higher than reported

    BY LI HAI July 22, 2021 Updated: July 22, 2021 biggersmaller Print

    America’s Frontline Doctors, a nonprofit, filed a motion on July 19 seeking immediate injunctive relief to stop the emergency use authorization (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines for three groups of Americans: anyone under the age of 18, anyone who has recovered from COVID-19, and those who haven’t given informed consent as defined by federal law.

    The motion was filed against Xavier Becerra, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and other defendants in a federal district court in the Northern District of Alabama.

    “The emergency declaration and its multiple renewals are illegal,” the complaint (pdf) alleges.

    According to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, when the HHS secretary declares that an emergency use is appropriate, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) may then authorize unapproved use or EUA of a vaccine.

    On Feb. 4, 2020, then-HHS Secretary Alex Azar declared a public health emergency, saying that existing circumstances justify the EUA.

    The complaint alleges that the legal requirements to issue and maintain COVID-19 vaccine EUAs aren’t being met.

    Department of Health and Human Services in Washington on Sept. 16, 2011. (Susan Stierch/CC 4.0)

    First, there’s no underlying emergency and no “serious or life-threatening disease or condition,” the complaint states.

    According to the defendants’ data, the CCP virus has an overall survivability rate of 99.8 percent globally, “on a par with the seasonal flu.”

    However, the defendants’ data is deliberately inflated, the complaint alleges. It claims that HHS has changed the rules applicable to people responsible for writing death certificates and requires them to make cause of death determinations primarily attributable to COVID-19. From last March, death certificates indicated “COVID-19 [as] being the underlying cause more often than not.”

    The way in which COVID-19 is diagnosed, using magnified values from PCR tests that were also authorized for emergency use, guarantees “an unacceptably high number of false-positive results,” the complaint states.

    Second, COVID-19 vaccines aren’t effective in diagnosing, treating, or preventing a disease or condition, which fails another requirement for issuing and maintaining EUAs.

    The complaint cites data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) that says a total of 10,262 CCP virus breakthrough infections (detection of SARS-COV-2 within 14 or more days after receiving required dosages of a COVID-19 vaccine) were reported between Jan. 1 and April 30.

    “It is important to note that the vaccines were only shown to reduce symptoms—not block transmission,” the complaint reads.

    Third, the benefits don’t outweigh the known and potential risks of each vaccine. Those risks are especially increased in reproductive health, potential death, neurological damage, more virulent strains, and others.

    And lastly, there are adequate, approved, and available alternatives to the vaccines, such as Ivermectin, Budesonide, Hydroxychloroquine, and others.

    Not Adequately Informed

    The plaintiffs also allege that health care professionals and vaccine candidates aren’t being adequately informed about the vaccines, as the federal law requires.

    “No one ever provided me with any information regarding possible adverse reactions, nor did they provide me with any information regarding alternative treatments. I did not understand this was gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine. Again, I also did not understand that the vaccines were not ‘approved’ by the FDA,” plaintiff Angelia Deselle said in a declaration included in the lawsuit.

    The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was established to provide information regarding adverse events potentially caused by vaccines. The complaint states that VAERS isn’t accurate and that the federal government is failing to provide data from other sources, such as the military, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    According to the complaint, a patient can’t give informed consent without an understanding of the risks.

    Under-18 Age Group and Those Recovered From COVID-19

    “CDC data indicates that children under 18 have a 99.998 percent COVID-19 recovery rate with no treatment,” the complaint reads. “Injecting this under-18 subpopulation with the Vaccines threatens them with immediate, potentially life-threatening harm.”

    Last month, the CDC said that more than 1,200 cases of heart inflammation in adolescents and young adults were reported following the administration of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s two-dose vaccines.

    “There is no public interest in subjecting children to experimental vaccination programs, to protect them from a disease that does not threaten them,” Dr. Angelina Farella, a pediatrician who has actively practiced for over 25 years, said in a statement. Farella is an expert for America’s Frontline Doctors.

    Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines Syringes with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines lie on a tray during a program without an appointment, in Sant Vicenc de Castellet, north of Barcelona, Spain, on July 6, 2021. (Albert Gea/Reuters)

    The complaint also asserts that Americans who have recovered from COVID-19 shouldn’t get vaccinated.

    It cites a recent Cleveland Clinic study that demonstrates that natural immunity through prior infection is stronger than any benefit conferred by a COVID-19 vaccine. Another study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, shows that of those with preexisting COVID-19 immunity, 89 percent reported adverse side-effects after receiving the first vaccine injection.

    “COVID recovered patients are at extremely high risk to a vaccine,” plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Richard Urso said in a statement. “They have all the requisite components of immune memory. Vaccination may activate a hyperimmune response leading to a significant tissue injury and possibly death.”

    Whistleblower Testimony: 45,000 Deaths Following Vaccinations

    Jane Doe, a computer programmer with expertise in the health care data analytics field, filed a sworn statement indicating that the actual number of deaths following the COVID-19 vaccination is about 45,000.

    “It is my professional estimate that VAERS database, while extremely useful, is under-reported by a conservative factor of at least 5. On July 9, 2021, there were 9,048 deaths reported in VAERS,” Jane Doe said in her statement (pdf).

    “I queried data from CMS medical claims with regard to vaccines and patient deaths, and have assessed that the deaths occurring within 3 days of vaccination are higher than those reported in VAERS by a factor of at least 5. This would indicate the true number of vaccine-related deaths was at least 45,000.”

    Jane Doe noted that the swine flu vaccine was taken off the market because of 53 deaths reported following vaccination.

    “The evidence makes it irrefutable that Plaintiffs and others in the public will suffer irreparable injury … if this motion is denied,” the plaintiffs asserted. “Finally, the evidence tilts the balance of hardships and public interest … decisively in favor of Plaintiffs.”

    In an email to The Epoch Times, HHS declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying, “As a matter of policy, we do not comment on pending litigation.”

    President Joe Biden has praised the vaccines as safe and effective.

    “You know, some people have questions about how quickly the vaccines were developed. They say they’ve been developed so quickly, they can’t be that good. Well, here’s what you need to know: Vaccines were developed over a decade of research in similar viruses, and they’ve gone through strict FDA clinical trials,” Biden said last month.

    “The bottom line is this—I promise you: They are safe. They are safe. And even more importantly, they’re extremely effective.”

    The Biden administration announced earlier this month that it would begin a door-to-door outreach campaign in targeted communities to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates

Leave a Reply