Alfred Dawes | Time to end vaccination mandates

There is no scientific reason why we should be segregated into the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. None. Vaccinated individuals can easily spread the variants of the SARS-Cov2 virus that are wreaking havoc across the world. You are almost as likely to contract COVID-19 from being around vaccinated individuals as you are by fraternising with unvaccinated persons. If one factors in risk compensation, your chances of getting the virus from a vaccinated person is actually higher.

Unfortunately, we have been told so often of the differences between vaxxed and unvaxxed that we have held on to those conclusions even when the data has changed. That the unvaccinated are putting everyone else at risk is a concept rooted in the ability of the vaccines to help us achieve herd immunity. This changed after the delta strain began infecting the vaccinated in large enough numbers to put the dream of herd immunity to an end. We cannot still hold on to that dream and repeat the mantra that the unvaxxed are selfish and dangerous. The science does not support that conclusion and we need to put that reason for divisions to rest.

Another still pertinent reason why the unvaccinated may pose a threat to the rest of us is the reality that the vaccines still offer some protection against severe disease requiring hospital care. This means that severe disease is seen proportionally higher in the unvaccinated. As hospital capacity remains limited, the burden on the health sector by droves of seriously ill patients will cause unnecessary stress on healthcare workers and displace other non COVID-19 patients who need urgent care. In this scenario, those who put themselves at risk for serious COVID-19 illness are putting others at risk of non-treatment of other conditions by crowding the hospitals. Is this enough to require vaccination mandates then?

Vaccination benefits begin to wane after a few months and booster shots are needed in order to bump up their efficacy in protecting against serious disease and hospitalisation. The vaccinated, unboosted, will at some point have a similar risk of hospitalisation as the unvaccinated. At what point post-vaccination will the cut-off be, in order to be classified as appropriately vaccinated, and be favoured along with those who are not considered a danger to society? Will there be a requirement for boosters if one is too far gone from the moment of inoculation in order to work or attend events? This needs to be addressed immediately if mandates are to be continued.

TARGET

There are also clearly defined risk factors as to who are more likely to be hospitalised and thus deny care for non-COVID-19 patients. Severe disease is more often seen in the elderly, obese, those with comorbidities such as diabetes, and surprisingly not mentioned enough, those with deficiencies in zinc and vitamin D. If we can identify those with a higher risk of severe disease, and there are proven early treatments to limit disease progression, isn’t it more rational, and easier, to target those individuals in order to reduce the risk of overwhelming hospitals? Isn’t mandating that younger, fitter people with already low chances of hospitalisation be vaccinated counter-intuitive if the goal is to decrease hospitalisation rates?

The unvaccinated, on the other hand, may be even more protected than the vaccinated if they have acquired immunity through natural infection. There is an abundance of studies that show the superiority of the immune response following natural infection compared to that generated by vaccination. We are just coming out of what I still call the godsend omicron surge, that served as nature’s vaccination drive. Hundreds of thousands of Jamaicans were infected by omicron and they now have natural immunity. They are now naturally “vaccinated”. Without antibody testing in the population, how can one say that they are unprotected and a danger to the rest of us?

IMMUNITY

We therefore have some vaccinated individuals who are not protected because of waning immunity, and some unvaccinated who are better protected by their natural immunity. We know that the vaccines do not prevent you from catching or spreading the virus. The choice of being vaccinated serves only to protect one’s own health and not that of co-workers, patrons or others seeking care at filled hospitals. Having only vaccinated persons next to you at events does nothing to stop you from catching the disease. Vaccine-only events are not grounded in science. So why have them? To force others to take the jab? This is not a reasonable approach to save our flagging vaccination programme.

In segregating us into the vaxxed and the unvaxxed, the true line that has been drawn by the Government of Jamaica is between those who support, and those who oppose, an immoral, unjust and unscientific policy. Segregation in any form has never been found to be morally acceptable by future generations. Supporters of this policy will find themselves on the wrong side of history. Whether vaxxed or unvaxxed, we must unite and resist the implementation of this attempt to divide us.

We often forget that we are writing our own history. Especially in the time of a black swan event as a global pandemic, this period will be the subject of intense scrutiny by future generations. Our voices and actions are carefully being recorded for review by future historians.

It is no longer enough to be silent on the matter, as silence equates with implicit, passive support of the policies of oppressors. We must choose to be an oppressor, or to fight for the oppressed. That is the true division in our society.

- Dr Alfred Dawes is a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, CEO of Windsor Wellness Centre, and medical spokesman for Lifespan Spring Water. Follow him on Twitter @dr_aldawes. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and adawes@ilapmedical.com