2020-12-24
Now you and I and the rest of the normal world (not to mention almost all epidemiologists to date) have no doubt grown up with and accepted the concept of herd immunity - if enough people get exposure to a disease (either through catching it and recovering or through vaccination) then we become largely immune to it, and as more and more people achieve this happy immunity the pathogen has more and more trouble finding susceptible hosts to infect, so that the disease soon enough peters out.
So the recent report from the AIER comes as something of a surprise . . .
Does the WHO now somehow conclude that herd immunity can only be achieved through vaccination after all? This seems an extraordinary proposition that requires some explanation if we are to accept it.
But let us return to the real world. Some of the biggest funding contributions to the WHO come from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is world-famous for its interests in promoting vaccination. Is it too far-fetched to suspect that there may be some connection here?
It is certainly true that the primary objective of vaccination is to provide immunity whilst not inflicting the associated illness, which most would agree is a laudable objective. But whilst one might reasonably propose that vaccination may be the preferred route to immunity, it seems a bit extreme to erase the human immune system from the equation altogether, since even a vaccine could not work its magic without it.
Even if we ignore the gargantuan costs associated with vaccine development and roll-out, it isn't inappropriate to consider whether the risks from mass vaccination (no vaccine is 100% safe) might be much the same as the risks of catching the disease in the first place, especially if it's one from which the vast majority mostly recover without undue inconvenience or suffering.
