This week we see published a rather balanced piece in the BMJ about the mainstream dismissal of natural immunity to COVID-19.
I’d highly recommend it as a good catch-up on the abundance of good research we now have available pointing to natural immunity’s efficacy and possible outperformance of vaccination.
There are remarks there from Monica Gandhi and a couple of other scientists pointing out this research. There are acknowledgments of under-discussed factors like T-cells and B-cells, and the narrow nature of the vaccines’ targeting of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein vs. the broader natural immune response.
All of that is well and good; and again, makes for a distilled recap of what we’ve discovered about natural COVID immunity. However, none of it will be especially surprising to those who have been following the actual research as opposed to “official guidance.”
What is actually a bit more unique about the BMJ article is what it lays bare about the “noble lie” phenomenon which seems now to be ubiquitous among unelected officials and public health bureaucrats in (formerly?) democratic nations.
“It’s a lot easier to put a shot in their arm,” says Sommer. “To do a PCR test or to do an antibody test and then to process it and then to get the information to them and then to let them think about it—it’s a lot easier to just give them the damn vaccine.”
This should chill you. If this isn’t saying the quiet part out loud, it is at bare minimum powering on the microphone by accident.
I’m once more reminded (as I have been repeatedly since Spring 2020) of Loki’s speech early in the first Avengers film:
What struck me about this article is that it never really sought to call into question the existence or even the effectiveness of natural immunity. At this point it seems few experts sincerely believe vaccine immunity to be superior to natural immunity in terms of meaningful risk reduction.
So whence cometh the refusal to acknowledge natural immunity?
In spite of this, guidance and policy have been slow to account for the latest science (note the small “s” and lack of trademark protection). Incidentally, there are ironies here:
The evidence in terms of clinical outcomes for accepting natural immunity as comparable to vaccination is now much more favorable and robust than the evidence for universal masking, especially cloth masks.
The Science™ changing re:masks is almost always adopted almost overnight into official guidance, unlike the (intentionally) glacial conversation on natural immunity.
For a group concerned about downplaying and denialism, COVID Experts seem to be engaged in a lot of it to maintain their line on natural immunity.
But I digress.
There appear to be three broad reasons for the sustained (and feigned) ignorance on this subject:
Concern about people who will “game the system” and attempt to falsify records or proof of natural immunity to COVID in order to evade vaccination
Concern about people who are infected with and recover from COVID without ever having had a positive test for the virus or for antibodies
Concern about people who will attempt to deliberately infect themselves with SARS-CoV-2 to gain naturally immunity
Now, we know that the Experts are playing a game of 4D chess when they formulate guidance. But 4D chess is not like regular chess and it has some extra game pieces. The above concerns represent three of these distinct pieces. Let’s call them Outlaws, Ghosts, and Fools.
The “Outlaws”
Those who will say “I already had COVID, I’m good to go” who in fact have never been infected.
This is actually just a rehash of that ancient debate on people who claim medical exemptions to masks to get out of masking at the grocery store or other such establishments.
It must not be allowed to progress to the point where we engage in outright discrimination against the people who really do fall under the category that ought to be exempt.
We saw it happen with masks; Kroger shoppers may recall a regular announcement over the in-store speaker systems to the effect that customers medically unable to tolerate masking were invited to take their business online. For those with a disability preventing use of a mask, this would seem to me to be in violation of the ADA:
(C) Opportunity to participate
Notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, an individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or activities that are not separate or different.
Now I’m sure you could argue this point based on the “undue burden” clause or similar language in the Act. The point is that we seem unconcerned about discrimination against people with legitimate cause to be exempt from certain policies, all to weed out a few who would falsley claim the exemption.
Denial of service to the underserved used to be a hot-button issue and an unforgiveable transgression, whereas now it is now apparently a basic assumption and a necessary sacrifice imposed on them.
What we are talking about here is rejecting policy that would greatly benefit a large number of people to whom it applies simply because of a (I would argue small) chance that some might abuse it.
The 4D chess here is to outwit the bad actors at the expense of the majority of ordinary people. The Outlaws must be cornered even if other valuable pieces are lost in the process.
The “Ghosts”
Those who really have recovered from COVID but lack documentation to prove it. Sort of the opposite of the Outlaws.
A great sin in the age of data-driven decisions is to fail, even unintentionally, to participate in a dataset. Thus those who have had COVID, recovered, and somehow never made it onto an official dashboard, graph, or chart are primarily anomalies to be corrected.
These pieces are unpredictable and their very existence in the game is not easily perceived.
The objection in this case is raised, ostensibly, on the basis of difficulty in tracking these people, who lack confirmation of infection via SARS-CoV-2 or antibody tests. I.e., “but how do they document their status?”
But look carefully. What this actually is, is a complaint that the totalitarian regime will be too difficult to uphold if we cannot account for every last data point (read: human). It is a premise which must not be granted, which says that God-given rights like the freedom of movement and the freedom to earn a living should be conditional based on documentation of immunity to a seasonal respiratory virus.
Whenever this topic comes up, always remember that acknowledgment of natural immunity is only half of the battle. The other half, arguably the bigger half, is to fight against the idea that you must show your papers to buy food or become employed. That too much ground has already been ceded on this front is not a reason to cede further ground.
The 4D chess here is to allow no gaps in the data, no matter how small. The Ghosts must be captured, before they threaten to unravel the entire strategy.
The “Fools”
Those who would throw “COVID parties” to encourage accelerated acquisition of natural immunity in the population.
Perhaps a particular worry of the Omnipotent Moral Busybodies is the anticipation that, if they allow it to become mainstream knowledge that natural COVID immunity is real and that it “counts” by every meaningful standard, then a certain number of people will go and seek deliberately to infect themselves or their children with the virus to gain natural immunity.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think it is unwise to deliberately infect someone with a virus (you did see the label “Fools,” right?). I would say the same about influenza or even the common cold.
There is a seemingly very real fear here of the liability involved with inadvertently steering people toward such actions. Just as with all other examples of extreme risk aversion over the past 18 months, expect almost any strategy that reduces perceived liability of the Experts to be adopted wholesale — no matter how irrational or detrimental toward the general population. I say this to point out that unlike the other two pieces detailed above, this talking point seems to stem not from direct authoritarian impulses but from plain cowardice (though perhaps the two are not so different).
Data on severe illness and death from COVID still seems to me to indicate vaccination is the way to go for most immunologically naive adults (all else being equal) though there is some wonky stuff going on between doses 1 and 2. But just like with the Outlaws above, to craft guidance centered entirely on these few is damaging to the needs, rights, and wellbeing or the majority. It totally writes off those who have been previously infected, who did not seek to be of their own accord, but who nonetheless do not wish to receive a vaccine carrying unclear benefit (at best) and even less clear long-term risk. But this group is surely a much larger share of the population than those who would deliberately infect themselves.
Besides this, the more likely reaction among those who are both immunologically naive and unwilling to be vaccinated is to say “ah well, when I get infected, I get infected, and I am most likely going to recover.” Not to immediately decide to acquire immunity through infection. Remember that this group by definition doesn’t care as much about gaining COVID immunity, hence their failure to fall in line for the shot. Rather they have simply reasoned that their known risk from the virus is not high enough to scare them. Again, I do not claim that this reasoning is wise in all cases, but it does not follow that the next move for such people would automatically be deliberate COVID infection.
The 4D chess here is to preempt any kind of liability or blowback. The Fools must not be allowed to traverse the board even slightly or they might cause severe collateral damage to pawns and capital pieces alike.
The Inducement Gambit
Shared by all three of the above categories of consideration is a borderline-pathological need by leading Experts to create their guidelines not according to the truth but according to what will lead to the desired behavior among the population.
For reasons of either totalitarian leanings or simple fear of liability, this has become the favored tool in the kit ever since Dr. Fauci’s infamous flip-flopping on universal masking. When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail. I’m not convinced that officials like Fauci actually remember how to play it straight anymore, by which I mean “tell people the truth to the best of your ability and give them your best recommendations based on the real and disclosed risks.”
Instead of valued partners acting in good faith and shared trust, we are now subjects of would-be chessmasters absolutely terrified that the game might not play out how they want if the truth comes out. The ACLU understood back in 2008 that this was no way to treat the public if you want to be effective in handling a pandemic illness.
What the chessmasters sacrifice in this play is the trust of the public. This seems like a poor tradeoff since the loss of that trust will hurt us worse and for longer than the virus.
I hope the BMJ article sees wide circulation; because probably the most important step toward normal, more than any rescindment of a particular mandate or restriction, is a reversal of the mentality that people in an emergency are to be manipulated into desired behavior rather than informed and trusted.
We cannot afford to have people in power who assume we “crave subjugation,” who consider it too cumbersome “to get the information to them and then to let them think about it,” who deal in half-truths to induce compliance.
Do not fall for the gambit, and ideally prefer a game of regular old chess with defined and agreed-on rules.
Thanks for a well written, informative article. The quotes in the BMJ article from policy makers discussing vaccinating the naturally immune tells me everything I need to know. There's no hiding how little they care about individual risk/benefit if that truth makes things 'complicated' for them. Just give them all the shot and see what happens. This is bad science and medicine.
>> Data on severe illness and death from COVID still seems to me to indicate vaccination is the way to go for most immunologically naive adults (all else being equal)
Given the overwhelmingly low (and dropping) IFR, you really believe this? That COVID presents sufficient risk to normal healthy adults (I assume this is what you meant by "all else being equal") that vaccination is the wisest choice for nearly everyone, given everything else known about the efficacy and risks of the vaccines themselves?
I can think of very few risks I face on a daily basis that concern me less than COVID.