The focus on eradicating COVID-19 is a subspecies of a particularly modern phenomenon called “safetyism”
I decided against a fourth Covid vaccine when Israel made them available to those over 60 a few months ago. For one thing, despite the above-the-fold headlines every day about the dramatic increase in cases due to the rapid spread of the Omicron variant, the numbers of those requiring hospitalization were by no means commensurate. Most of my children and grandchildren have tested positive, and not one had more than a bad cold or flu-like symptoms for a few days.
And though I qualified for the vaccine by age, I’m healthy.
Finally, it seemed clear that a fourth vaccine would lead, in quick order, to a fifth, sixth, and beyond. And such a regimen of repeated vaccines at six-month intervals or so has never been tested before, and thus the long-range effects cannot be known. Regulators in the UK have recommended against a fourth vaccine, and the World Health Organization has termed a strategy of repeated vaccinations “unsustainable.”
The WHO’s pronouncement may have been primarily driven by a desire to deliver more vaccines to underdeveloped countries prior to offering a fourth vaccine to those who have already had two or three, rather than by a fear of spurring a weakening of the immune system in recurrent recipients — “vaccine tiredness.” But regardless, we will not know the impact of repeated vaccinations at short intervals for some time. All vaccines carry some risk, which is why vaccine manufacturers routinely demand and receive immunity from tort actions from the government, just in case adverse effects come to the fore over time.
Create a free account to keep reading.