Okay, any regular reader of my blog posts knows that I've been critical of the "Good Morning Liberty" podcast hosts Nate Thurston and Chuck Thompson. This time I'm not picking a fight over my podcast backlog; like their pro-Trump tilt (no, they didn't vote for Trump, but they bought into Trumpkin talking points on the 2 impeachments). This time it's a recent podcast; this one involving the latest expose by the sensationalist conservative undercover "investigation" Project Veritas group headed by James O'Keefe. (I have occasionally cited Project Veritas over the life of the blog but not regularly or recently). I have zero interest in watching their latest gotcha video, allegedly targeting a top Pfizer vaccine scientist.
I need to provide context for discussion. Both Nate (unvaccinated) and Chuck (vaccinated) have been infected by COVID-19; in the case of the latter a less serious vaccine breakthrough case about a month after completing his vaccination regimen. Nate has a nuanced standpoint; he does pay lip service to the general efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines but at the same time he has subtly spliced in antivaxxer comments suggesting the mRNA vaccines are "synthetic" (vs. natural) and we don't know the long-term effects of the vaccine. Nate also tends to argue natural immunity is superior to the acquired immunity through vaccination. Nate seems to be defiant similar to Tom Woods in being contrarian for its own sake, wanting to rebel against what they see as Big Government's unrelenting pressure to get vaccinated as a power grab at the expense of individual autonomy.
I have discussed some of these issues/claims in my journal and other posts, but the fact is the mRNA vaccines are highly effective against severe illness leading to hospitalization and death. As of the end of August only about 0.65% of those hospitalized over COVID-19 had been fully vaccinated. About 99% of deaths were of the unvaccinated. Of the vaccinated people who were hospitalized or died, the preponderance of those have been seniors, often with underlying chronic conditions. In contrast, since January, we've seen in many hospitals the median age for admissions drop by about 20 years (like to the mid-40's), most without chronic conditions.
Much evidence of the "natural superiority" of prior infection is based on an extensive study in Israel. There are a number of limitations to the study including a reliance on self-report data (e.g., vaccinated people were more likely to get tested). What Nate ignores is the evidence that past unvaccinated infected with subsequent (partial) vaccination had superior outcomes to "natural immunity", maybe up to half or more as many infections, hospitalizations, deaths, etc. In part, vaccinations of older, more health-complicated individuals had occurred early in the year, and its protection waned after 6 months or so against the highly contagious Delta variant. In addition, the CDC reported a Kentucky study showing 3 times the rates of "natural immunity" reinfections among the unvaccinated.
Nate and Chuck seemed particularly indignant that apparently vaccine mandates discriminate against "naturally immune" unvaccinated. In particular, in a more recent (I think solo episode), Nate brought up I believe the case of UC-Irvine professor of psychiatry and human behavior Aaron Kheriaty, who argues he was infected a year ago last June, and the state/college mandate violates the 14th amendment's right of equal protection under the law, that the state is discriminating against those with natural immunity.
This is an interesting argument but I don't think it'll go anywhere for a variety of reasons. First, we don't have a lot of data on "natural immunity", its duration, transmissibility on reinfection (the professor's immunity might have waned over the past year); second, the unvaccinated by evidence today have better outcomes with additional vaccination. Third, mandatory vaccines under state health security police power has legal precedent. The vaccine requirement is generally applicable to all with some very limited exceptions to physical sensitivity to vaccines, religious exemptions, and the professor's fixation with a modest breach of bodily integrity is subordinate to a general attempt to control the spread of a contagious disease. See Volock here for related arguments. (Personally, given the low statistics on reinfection for those with past infection, I might think if there was a way to verify natural immunity is sufficient and current, I might craft an exemption into policy.) Oh, and I'm not a fan of the incorporation doctrine.
In a country where over 76% of adults ate at least partially vaccinated, and where the preponderance of cases filling hospitals to capacity are from the ranks of the unvaccinated, I'm playing the world's smallest violin for those outraged over taking a vaccine that protects themselves and others. Man up, dudes!
