Just to make clear--if I did not have natural immunity (which is equal or superior protection than any existing vaccine) I would have chosen to be vaccinated despite the risks.
But after an antibody screening test and consulting with my doctor, I believe it is medically unnecessary and has an elevated risk of side effects compared to non-survivors. #screenB4vaccine
I'm not your doctor and I don't know your medical history. So I'm not going to tell you what's right for you. And I believe the science: I have robust natural immune protection and I believe the dozen-plus studies that show that your decision has minimal impact on me.
My immunity protection from infection is roughly 95%. The J&J vaccine has a 1/3 failure rate in clinical trials. GMU's mandate recognizes any WHO-approved vaccine, which includes several which have not been approved by FDA even under EUA.
So I'm supposedly a danger to the GMU community, despite a serological test that shows antibodies levels comparable to vaccination plus the benefits of natural immunity in protection from variants. But I'm safe if I receive the WHO-approved Sinovac vaccine (51% efficacy)?
How can such irrational distinctions possibly be rationalized as being about protecting community health because it clearly is not. What's really going on?
This is the first time GMU has ever required proof of vaccine for faculty and staff, not for brutally deadly, infectious diseases such as measles, poliomyelitis, diptheria, etc. So how can this justified as being about protecting community safety?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
