Politicians Should not be Dictating Immunity Status (RANT)

Well established science does not bend to the whims of lawmakers.

Israel has been one of the most transparent countries when it comes to their COVID data, including their vaccination rates. They were also one of the first countries to implement a vaccine passport via a QR-code system Green Pass. They seemed to have been doing everything right but now they are seeing a surge in cases and hospitalizations.

This has led to Israel establishing a 6 month limit on their vaccine passes, meaning that you will no longer be able to use your QR-code if your last vaccination is greater than 6 months old.

So how did the Israeli government solve this issue? By establishing booster shots, meaning that it is now a requirement for people to have booster shots, even if you have been previously vaccinated, in order to normally operate among society.

Here’s the kicker though, what this policy has done has essentially made it so that people who do not receive their boosters are essentially being labeled as unvaccinated; by arbitrarily requiring booster shots politicians and public health officials who are, essentially, politicians are now dictating what constitutes “vaccinated” and, therefore, what constitutes being immunized.

This argument has never been predicated on any sound form of science and research. Sure, there is evidence that a booster does increase antibodies, but antibodies are not the be all/end all of immunity.

Where would our species be if not for memory cells that can produce viable antibodies years into the future? There has been great issue with our public health policies when we focus on just antibodies. No, that doesn’t mean antibody titers are no good; they are great for determining persistent immunity and recent infections.

But what’s even more important is memory; if we know that T cells have prolonged memory after an infection or vaccination we should not worry about antibodies nor should we worry about boosters.

And we have evidence of strong memory support. As concluded by Dan. et. al, 2021:

Substantial immune memory is generated after COVID-19, involving all four major types of immune memory. About 95% of subjects retained immune memory at ~6 months after infection. Circulating antibody titers were not predictive of T cell memory. Thus, simple serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies do not reflect the richness and durability of immune memory to SARS-CoV-2. This work expands our understanding of immune memory in humans. These results have implications for protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and recurrent COVID-19.

Health policies have went about this all wrong, and the conversation of what constitutes being immunized that does not even consider natural immunity goes against established medical data and evidence. Like with many countries around the world, many regions of the US do not consider natural immunity a form of immunity in public policy (yes, this is an absolutely absurd sentence because this is an absolutely absurd idea!).

What we’re seeing more and more of are not policies based on scientific merit, sound research, and sensemaking but instead on parochial evidence that is used to extrapolate national policies.

I took a look at my old college microbiology textbook to see their definitions of herd immunity. Strangely enough, it is a very straightforward definition: the presence of immunity in most of the population. It’s a very broad definition that we can assume includes both natural and vaccine-induced immunity.

But what definition are we working with now? More and more it seems there is a push to focus on vaccination more than naturalized immunity. In this article from John’s Hopkins University, there is hardly any mention about naturalized immunity against SARS-COV2 being a large part of herd immunity except for a line near the end of the article.

Even more alarmingly, Instagram has banned the mentioning of natural immunity, a move that can be seen as tech giants subverting science a the behest of health officials who are no different than political leaders.

Many Israelis may now be considered unvaccinated, but not because of actual scientific evidence or research, but because of legislation by government officials. When the government can arbitrarily decide someone’s immunity status, we no longer are working within the realms of science.

Science begets public policy. Public policy does not dictate what science is nor does, and when we see a merging of both we see who wins out in the end, much to our chagrin.

Fortunately, we are seeing many people push back against ridiculous, unscientific legislations, and we will need to see more in order for us to get back to sound, rational science-based policies.

Thank you for reading my newsletter. If you enjoy my articles please consider becoming a free subscriber in order to receive notifications.

And share with others who may find these newsletters interesting.

Also, please consider becoming a paid member. The research and work put into these articles takes many hours and being a paid subscriber allows me to continue to do this full time.