To Mandate or not

Employers and employees face difficult decisions in the weeks ahead regarding vaccine mandates.  Guidance by the White House has extended mandates beyond government contractors.  Now they’re engaging OSHA to mandate rules for companies of 100+ employees to receive SARS-COV2 inoculations by 1/4/2022 or take weekly tests.  Non-compliant companies will be subject to financial penalties.  Should there be a national mandate?

In the 1950s, there was a push for mass vaccinations for the polio virus.  While the initial rollout proved harmful to many, eventually we had a safe and effective polio vaccine.  By 1994, the United States eliminated the disease.  This success emerged from usage of inactivated or attenuated polio virus.  The human body responds to this version of the virus by developing its own natural immunity. 

Once that immunity developed within the population, it was possible to eradicate it.  Consider also that the polio virus is a more stable, less mutating virus, making it easier to obtain vast immunity.

To my knowledge, attempts to develop coronavirus vaccines proved unsuccessful.  Enter mRNA.  Unlike the aforementioned polio vaccine, this vaccine only exposes our bodies to the SARS-COV2 spike protein.  There is no immunization, as such.  Recipients of mRNA can catch and spread the virus.  This is not a surprise since there is no claim by the drug companies that their products offer immunity.  However, the drug companies themselves are immune from product liability for mRNA.

The CDC has altered the definition of a vaccine.  Here’s how they defined it pre-2015:

Injection of a killed or weakened infectious organism in order to prevent the disease

In the period between 2015 and 2019 it changed to:

The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.

Then in September of this year it became:

The act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection from a specific disease.

Why the changes?  Why has there not been an announcement from the CDC or the NIAID regarding these changes?  How would public and medical community reaction have changed?

When proposing mandates, there are several considerations for leaders at national, state, and local levels.  We should also add considerations for those in private companies that have been front-running the mandates.

Consider the following:

1. The distinction between vax and un-vax has lost meaning given high viral loads of current variant carried by both.  Among others, see recent study publication in Lancet.

2. Waning effectiveness of vaccines given earlier this year, hence the need for boosters. On a parenthetical note, how many who’ve had two inoculations will opt, via mandate, for a 3rd or 4th?

3. Natural immunity for those recovered from virus.

4. Adverse reactions documented that in prior instances of releasing vaccines would have paused deployment. I encourage readers to survey the CDC database comparing the number of adverse reactions from mRNA to all vaccines administered in last twenty years.

5. Ample availability of inexpensive therapeutics used to treat illness and prophylactically.

6. We know who’s likely to have the worst reactions to virus based on age and co-morbidities (and this is bearing out even with inoculated individuals). Why not focus more on this cohort?

At various times during the last 20 months, there have been mixed messages by public health authorities and at times, the inability to stay humble and simply say “we don’t know.” As more information became available through studies and field trials, instead of being scientifically curious, particularly with therapeutics, there’s been an insistence on a Zero virus policy only through inoculation. It’s unlikely we’ll arrive at Zero virus.  Consider other airborne viruses that are now endemic.  We’ve not eradicated rhinoviruses or previous coronaviruses.

Our virus health policy seldom advocated treatment despite ample evidence of the efficacy of various approaches.  Moreover, therapeutic approaches were available in the Spring of 2020.  We would not have mRNA released under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) if there were viable, safe therapeutics — hence the push for vaccines.

Think about the following scenario.  A “fully vaccinated” person could test positive for SARS-COV2 and enter an indoor facility provided they display their vax card.  Another unvaccinated person who perhaps never had the virus or recovered from it would be denied entrance.

Naturally, there’s been, and will continue to be legal action against these mandates.  The first step in legal action should be to remove the distinction of vax vs. un-vax because it is difficult, if not impossible, to create that distinction if the aim is to prevent infection/spread. This gets to the heart of the mandate. We hear of these mandates and we need, or the lawyers need, to ask the mandate’s purpose. If purpose is to prevent spread, that becomes a spurious outcome given current conditions. If it’s to prevent infections, that is also debatable given what are being termed “breakthrough” infections, which are inoculated people being infected with new variants. I’m not arguing about severity or hospitalizations of those inoculated with mRNA, though even that cohort appears to be represented similarly as before mRNA (hospitalizations appear to be those over a certain age and with co-morbidities).

As health care consumers, we’ve been shuttled into mRNA to the exclusion of therapeutics given at early onset presentation of the virus.  Why?  Should vaccine administration, in light of the points noted, be a decision between patient and doctor?  Should we have a one-size-fits-all virus policy?

I ask our leaders in government and private business, given what we know today, why do we need a mandate?  What do we hope to accomplish?

Notice that at no time have I mentioned “freedom” or “rights.”  These are often talking points inevitably turning the discussion political. While those terms are relevant, the information discussed here, on its own, should give the nation pause.  This is why a very fundamental question needs to be posed that does not focus on freedom or rights — yes, these are supremely important.

On merit alone,  why do our leaders prescribe these mandates?