It’s hard to comprehend why anyone who could get the vaccine would not. That may be because I’m a lawyer, and know only what I’ve read about its efficacy even though my family and I have made the decision to be fully vaccinated. It’s hard to explain why so many people in health care have chosen not to, although I’ve been told they have a far greater fear of unknown side effects than most. Some will chalk it up to right wing ideology, but that’s inaccurate and serves only to validate the intolerance of the left.
There are an array of reasons why people decide against getting vaccinated. There are the conspiracy theory nuts and there are people who have weighed the costs and benefits and chosen against it. And there are some for whom the practical barriers remain a reason, although like blaming MAGA nuts, it’s exaggerated as a universal excuse for the marginalized cohort just as Trumpkin lunacy is exaggerated to blame the wingnuts.
Reasonable people have chosen not to get the vaccine. I disagree with them, but then, they disagree with me.
But Todd Zywicki, George Mason University law prof, Volokh Conspirator, has raised an interesting challenge to his college’s mandate of “vaccines or masks or else.”
Last year I volunteered to teach in person, even though I’m in my 50s. Teaching law is my job and I owe my students my best. I also knew I could do it safely. During the spring of 2020 I contracted and recovered from Covid-19, which I later confirmed through a positive antibody test. Multiple positive antibody tests have since confirmed that I continue to have a robust level of immune protection.
But now my employer, a state institution, is requiring Covid vaccines. In my case, vaccination is unnecessary and potentially risky. My only other options are to teach remotely or to seek a medical exemption that would require me to wear a mask, remain socially distanced from faculty or students during, say, office hours, and submit to weekly testing.
Todd had Covid-19. He argues that his natural immunity, the antibodies developed from having suffered Covid-19, are at least the equivalent of the vaccine, and are likely better than the vaccine. He adds that since the vaccine was never tested on people who already have natural immunity, the potential for unknown side effects is significant.
Clinical studies from Israel, the Cleveland Clinic, England and elsewhere have demonstrated beyond a doubt that natural immunity to SARS-CoV-2 provides robust and durable protection against reinfection comparable to or better than that provided by the most effective vaccines. Examining the evidence this May, the World Health Organization concluded: “Current evidence points to most individuals developing strong protective immune responses following natural infection with SARS-CoV-2.”
Todd isn’t arguing against getting vaccinated, per se, and certainly isn’t trivializing the damage of contracting Covid. Indeed, he made clear that when he had it, it was terrible and, as a Covid-19 survivor, realizes far more than those who were never infected what a dangerous virus it is.
The point of the lawsuit is that there is no rational justification for a vaccine mandate that fails to create a carve-out for people with natural immunity, and instead seeks to compel them to get vaccinated even though it’s neither necessary nor proven safe.
In sum, the Policy violates both Professor Zywicki’s constitutional and federal statutory rights because it undermines his bodily integrity and conditions his ability to perform his job effectively on his willingness to take a vaccine that his doctor has advised could harm him.
And forcing him to take this vaccine will provide no discernible, let alone compelling, benefit
either to Professor Zywicki or to the GMU community. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine exists precisely to prevent government actors from clothing unconstitutional objectives and policies in the garb of supposed voluntarism when those actors fully intend and expect that the pressure they are exerting will lead to the targets of such disguised regulation succumbing to the government’s will.
It’s hardly a frivolous argument. It’s certainly not an argument against vaccination or in disregard of public health. And yet the reaction to the suit has been vitriol and outrage.
There is the flip side to George Mason’s policy, that if someone prefers not to get vaccinated, for whatever reason, just wear a mask. What’s the big deal?
Yet, if Professor Zywicki follows his doctor’s advice and elects not to take the vaccine, that will diminish his efficacy in performing his professional responsibilities by hamstringing him in various ways, such as requiring him to wear a mask that has no public health value given his naturally acquired immunity.
Many people really hate wearing masks. Others basically ridicule them for it, because if one person passionately believes it’s no big deal, no one else can feel otherwise without being awful. I’m no fan of masks, although I don’t find them to be so difficult to endure that I won’t wear one if need be. When I twitted something along these lines, I was vehemently attacked by some on the left for even hinting that wearing a mask wasn’t the easy and fun, because no one can say anything that might dissuade people from wearing masks.
Todd makes a strong argument in favor of allowing natural immunity to serve as the equivalent of a vaccine for the purposes of the George Mason policy. It might present some difficult twists in determining who has it, but there are tests and the burden could be placed on those claiming natural immunity to prove it. It adds some administrative difficulty, but what doesn’t?
The question is whether the complaint establishes that the alternative to being vaccinated, wearing a mask, is a sufficiently onerous burden as to give rise a legally cognizable issue. De minimis no curat lex, and when it comes to masks, de minimis is in the eyes of the mask wearer, I suppose. I fully appreciate that many people find wearing masks to be a burden. I remain unconvinced that the burden is sufficient to give rise to a constitutional violation.
But where is the tolerance for Todd? Where is the tolerance for the many people who have sincere questions and doubts? You don’t have to agree with Todd Zywicki’s cause, but the inability to tolerate any dispute in the name of righteousness is why, in the scheme of dangers, you are more insidious than Todd will ever be.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have chosen not to be vaccinated, but I don’t disagree with you.
You have the right to your bodily autonomy and to decide on your medical care. You didn’t provide your reasoning or decision process, nor should you have to. Those of us who make a different choice have the same rights.
I could have explained, but that’s not the point. That was my choice, and I appreciate that you respect it, just as I may disagree with, but respect, yours. And I hope you remain safe as I want you around for a long time to come.
“… just wear a mask. What’s the big deal?”
Sometimes a whole bunch of little deals start to add up…
“It’s just two weeks. It’s just staying three feet apart. It’s just staying six feet apart. It’s just not going outside. It’s just not giving handshakes. It’s just working from home. It is just non-essential businesses that are closed.
It’s just bars. It’s just restaurants. It’s just theaters. It’s just concerts. It’s just dancing. It’s just intramural sports. It’s just choir.
It’s just non-essential medical services that you have to give up. It is just non-essential items that you are not allowed to buy. It’s just not being able to exercise. It’s just gyms. It is just the closure of your business for a while. It is just not making money for a while. It is just not being able to pay your bills for a little while.
It’s just a minor inconvenience. It’s just not being allowed to carpool. It’s just not socializing for a while. It’s just a mask. It’s just not traveling for a while. It’s just not hugging people for a while. It’s just missionary sex that is risky.
It is just not seeing your family and friends for a while. It’s just not visiting your grandparents temporarily. It’s just your grandparents not having visitors for their safety. It’s just one birthday you have to sacrifice. It’s just one Thanksgiving alone. It’s just one Christmas without your family. It’s just two birthdays you had to sacrifice. It is just not celebrating any milestones for a year and a half.
It’s just temporary. It’s just a safety measure. It is just your ability to pay cash. It is just contact tracing. It is just a health screening. It is just a temperature check. It is just a scan of your face. It’s just a minor loss of privacy.
It is just one semester. It is just two semesters. It is just one year out of your child’s life. It is just one more semester. It is just a high school graduation.
It’s just the birth of your grandchild that you missed. It is just not being able to be there for your relatives when they are ill or dying. It is just not having a funeral. It is just in person that you cannot grieve with your loved ones. It is just not getting to attend religious service. It is just not getting to practice some parts of your religion.
It is just misinformation that is being censored. It is just conservatives that are being censored. It is just some of the science that is being censored. It is just the people who have the opposing opinions that are banned online. It is just the opposition that the White House is targeting for censorship. It is just bad opinions that are being censored.
It’s just the economy. It is just small business owners who are suffering financially. It is just poor people who are suffering financially. It is just people of color who are suffering financially. It is just financial suffering. It is just a few small businesses that had to close permanently. It is just a few big businesses that closed.
It is just not going farther than a few kilometers from your house. It is just a curfew. It is just a permission slip. It is just being alone for two weeks. It is just being socially isolated for one year.
It is just one vaccine. It is just one set of booster shots. It is just regular booster shots every six months. It is just another two weeks. It is just one more lock-down. It is just once a week — twice tops — that you will have to prove that you are fit to participate in society. It is just the unvaccinated that will be segregated from society. It is just a medical test.
Pretty simple, no?
Just fucking do it.
But when you add up all the “justs,” it amounts to our entire lives.”
A. Reeves
One of the components in identifying bad musicians and psychopathic liars is that they keep changing the tune.
GD OUT.
Perhaps true, and yet for the 600,000+ dead, “entire lives” doesn’t carry as much weight. Tolerance cuts both ways.
With covid or of covid? Who knows.
” Tolerance cuts both ways.” I wholeheartedly agree.
I refuse to demonize anyone for their choices, even if it turns out to be wrong.
But according to certain narratives, I’m crazy and horrible because I expect to be treated the same.
So be it.
Label it however you want, (‘not normal’, ‘bat-shit crazy’, ‘enlightened?’) but I’ve spent a lot of time contemplating my future non-corporeal existence. I’ve been to the edge of the Abyss.
After a few times you learn not to flinch…but it always scares the living shit out of you.
The inevitability of life ending is un-arguable. Its part of the deal.
Before all this shit showed up, I was fully aware of the odds of not making it home in things like the simple frivolous act of taking the bike out for a blast around block. The odds were, and still are, MUCH higher then the ones presented with this so-called pandemic. And I still do it.
I’m not saying that I invite the ‘inevitability’. I still take precautions, (ones that are actually useful) I almost always wear a helmet, and I keep my immune system bolstered. And yet, most of the times I’ve come face to face with my mortality, it happened so fast that the idea of being ‘prepared’ is downright laughable.
People who try to fear you up with whats ‘gonna get you’ are sad, pathetic and vile…nothing more than super-spreaders of a nihilistic mind virus. They’ll never understand what I know.
And they’ll never stop me living my life as I choose.
I’d rather live this day out and die tonight, free as I am, than to live ten more years physically restrained, mentally compromised, and spiritually corrupted.
But that’s just me, YMMV.
Every morning, upon waking and thanking the universe for one more day in this lovely, crazy, wonderful/horrible amusement park, and I repeat the words an admirable indigenous chieftain/warrior once said…(with feeling)
Just pretend there is a rational basis for this policy.
We’re you aware that recent news is that once the vaccines were given Emergency Use Authorization, the control group was offered the jab?
Without an unvaccinated control group the claims of safety are dubious. You are a lawyer. Good for you, bless you. Health care isn’t your area of expertise, even if you have read a lot. I’m a nurse, and rejecting this vaccination. Back when Ford was President I rejected that vaccination. However I have lots of other vaccinations… typhoid, diptheria, tetanus, mumps, measles, rhubella, Hepatitis, shingles, pneumonia, small pox, polio, and seasonal flu, to name a few.
So now I can do my part by remaining unvaccinated and being part of the missing control group. In February of 2020 I went to my primary care physician with Flu symptoms. I was tested for influenza and found to be positive for influenza A. Treatment was effective.
You raise that I’m a lawyer, even though I mentioned that to make the point you seem to be arguing in opposition to, that I have no first hand medical knowledge about the vaccine.
By raising it, you come off as a nutjob rather than a nurse making an otherwise rational point. You might want to consider whether it serves your purpose to pointlessly come off as nutjob if you don’t want to come off as a nutjob. Then again, maybe you can’t help yourself.
We can circle back on who is a nutjob for mentioning your status as a lawyer. Actually was not that a non sequitur?
Anyhow what’s up with tolerance? Wouldn’t clarity be better?
Not “we can circle back.” You. Next time, hit the pink button on the sidebar. And if I wasn’t being tolerant, I would have trashed your comment in the first place.
It’s truly interesting how the most tolerant people right now are those who choose to remain unvaccinated against COVID-19.
Most everyone I’ve spoken with who’s made that decision respects I made a cost/benefit analysis before getting double jabbed. I respect their rationale for doing otherwise, even if I disagree.
And our supposed “betters” would do well to look back to October of last year when they swore up and down they wouldn’t dare trust a vaccine developed during the Orange Man’s time in the White House.
Maybe then they’ll figure out the supposed “vaccine hesitant” don’t just scroll Facebook all day.
Tolerant, or just cheerleading? The vast and overwhelming majority of unvaccinated I’ve run into are folks who revel in their own ignorance and who also ran around screaming that being asked to put a mask on was akin to being loaded into cattle cars. Most of them say “I’ve got an immune system, I’ll be fine” and mutter something about sheeple and the whole thing being a hoax.
I’ve met a few who had the rona, and their doctors told them to avoid the vaccine. Those folks are fine by me, but I’ve got no tolerance for folks as described above, who are willfully causing the exact problem we are trying to prevent through their own thickheadedness and selfishness.
Lepers bells and yellow stars.
What will the unvaccinated be required to do to announce their presence?
At one point the head of NIH, during congressional testimony, indicated that less than half of the agency had been vaccinated (all were eligible.) That’s reason to question the “science”, unfortunately.
Studies over the years have consistently shown that the types of masks the public are utilizing problem near zero benefit vs the type of virus. CDC website states cloth masks are useless against smoke, smoke particles are 4 times larger than the viral particles. Masks are about social compliance, not health. Masks on children is child abuse.
Re introduce manufacturer liability before discussing mandates, corporate or governmental.
Dave, “at one point” renders your comment entirely meaningless. “At one point,” none of them had the vaccine, since it just had been released. “At one point,” 60% had been vaccinated.
At no point do you provide any reason why that is sufficient to question the “science.”
And as for masks, you are entirely incorrect. Yes, the virus itself is smaller than the gaps in the mask, but it has to be carried on something much larger, such as droplets from a sneeze.
When you claim “masks on children is child abuse” you sound like a pants-on-head crazy person. It really undermines your attempt at persuasion.
Policies ought to have a rational basis. For COVID survivors with natural immunity, I am not seeing the rational basis for either a vaccine or mask requirement.
Per the Red Cross donor site, plasma donated by COVID survivors can be used to save infected people via convalescent plasma therapy. Plasma donated by people who have vaccine-created immunity cannot be so used. The level and quality of the antibodies is insufficient. Until Red Cross suspended testing (on June 25) donors who were COVID survivors tested “positive” while vaccinated donors only tested “reactive” to one of the two antibody tests. At least as of this point, it is looking like the natural immunity provides a higher level of protection than the vaccines.
For another opinion, you can search for this: New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection. 8/6/2021
I think Prof. Zywicki cherry-picks the science a little, and I don’t understand why he wants to settle for “good enough” immunity when he could easily have much better immunity. But he has a point. He has more verifiable immunity than I do even though I’ve been vaccinated. (Medical explanation omitted.)
I’m sure the good professor really did have COVID-19, but there are people out there who have been sick with what they thought was COVID-19 but were never tested. And there are people who lie. Some sort of documentation, like a positive test or an antibody test, is in order and would require consensus about what constitutes acceptable proof.
His sources are old and only apply to natural immunity against non-Delta strains. More recent studies have found that natural immunity for earlier Covid infections does not cover against the Delta variant as well as the vaccine.
Not true. Largest and most recent study show otherwise: https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2
That study says no such thing. It doesn’t compare natural infections against vaccines at all. It hypothesizes targeting a broader range of epitopes may be more beneficial against variants; it does no real word comparison at all. It does no intro comparison against vaccines at all.
An actual, real world study that did so found natural infection resulted in a 2.34x higher likelihood of reinfection than full vaccination.
(If he can post a link and …be in error… about what it says, may I please share a rebuttal?)
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
In light of the nature of this dispute (about which I’m neutral), it only made sense to allow links to back up the positions. And it’s only fair that it goes for both sides.
The study you cite is comparing natural infection vs natural infection plus vaccination. The synopsis of the evidence is that vaccination bolsters immunity of those previously infected.
It is not comparing natural infection vs vaccination.
Recent data out of Israel does claim to compare natural infection vs vaccination with the Delta variant. A review of this data appears to show a ratio of ~6.7 to 1 in favor of natural infection over vaccination.
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/309762
Predictions were made early on that Covid would come to be another seasonal phenomenon for which a seasonal shot would be available. Of course we are getting another lesson that instead of the emergency evolving back to the norm, the norm would evolve to accommodate the state of emergency. It’s another priciple of power, like the Iron Law of Institutions. Next step is when this becomes the norm for flu season, because think of the media support and partisan hay we can generate for that.
You knew this was going to happen. You write about tolerance and the shit-for-brains get hung up on effluvia. You really are a masochist.
There’s no vaccine for that.
I believe Bowmore makes an excellent vaccine for that.
I shall begin a longitudinal study to test that thesis immediately.
It’s not masochism, Sarge.
He’s just a good host that likes to keep all the guests happy, including the attention-deficit sadists.
I’m the one on the right, aren’t I?
I dunno, look who’s immediately upstream of this thread.
I am a telling you esteemed one the uncompelling arguments are gonna drive brick futures through the roof.
In the meantime I am sad you didn’t take a run at “memory” cells and why they, in the land of the Rona dont mind a little “help”…
Could have been so much fun!
In the meantime if the thunder don’t do the trick, getting fried by the lightning will.
I love this country of ours….
P.S. you should follow this challenge carefully, and post up what you would do along the way as judge. You have been dying to play judge anyway, and this here one ought to be an extra special fun one…
I have the greatest respect for Dr Hooman Noorchashm, whose expert statement accompanied Professor Zywicki’s lawsuit, but not one of the 40 points in his “Declaration” addressed any potential downside to mask-wearing (though there is plenty to cite). Rather, it was all about the lack of benefits of vaccination in this setting and why coerced vaccination is wrong. That makes the question of whether “wearing a mask is a sufficiently onerous burden” a crucial issue.
It seems to me (sans even a Twitter Law degree) that if the GMU policy was articulated as “mandated masking for all, but exemption for those deemed immunized” (and not “mandated immunization for all and masking for those not immunized”), Professor Zywicki’s position would be weaker. All he’d have is the (conclusory) claim that with a mask, he’d be at unfair disadvantage, impeded “from carrying out his responsibilities as successfully as his vaccinated colleagues, jeopardizing his teaching evaluations, future student enrollment” etc. (And just as students at many schools got a vacation from grading and evaluations during the pandemic, GMU could also suspend teaching evaluations too [though my school did not. Grrr.] Such a reprieve would also address your “sufficiently onerous burden” issue.)
Framed as an argument about coerced unnecessary medical treatment, it’s hard to argue against Professor Zywicki’s position. But if it’s really a debate about what counts as “immunized”, or whether masking for those not so counted is burdensome, I would imagine institutions would be granted broader deference.
I wear a mask because I am not vaccinated. I believe the threat of Covid is very much real. Since March 16th, 2020, I have worked without taking additional time off (five to six days a week) in a restaurant doing take-out and then outdoor dining and then limited indoor dining. Finally, 100 percent.
I had appreciated SHG’s kind words one day, as I always awake and read his posts, thanking the front line workers, before i prepared myself to go into work. I have never have, or even could, worked from home during the pandemic. I had a duty to perform for my co-workers and the American economy.
And when the riots came and burned buildings down two doors down from my restaurant I had a call to action, without thinking, to chase away those who had smashed the front glass door with baseball bats to vandalize the place. I had a duty to ensure there was still a place for my employees to return to work.
I wear a mask and remain unvaccinated because this ordeal has been played as a political football. I have stepped up and faced the unknown in a bygone time where death by disease was a risk with doing your job day after day. There are many who have not.
If I would to be afflicted with and succumb to this virus my only regret will be that I will no longer be able to shepherd my staff towards their successful future. However, I have survived thus and I have built our restaurant operation back up, from the days of nothing during the pandemic, where I could feel content that they will be all right.
Ikiru.