Now that at least one employer in the health-care field - Michigan's Spectrum Health - has decided to accept proof of natural immunity from prior infection as reason to waive its vaccination mandate for all employees, legal expert are wondering: will the legality of proving natural immunity potentially win out in court?
According to a report in Yahoo Finance, the notion that natural immunity is superior is already gaining support in the legal world.
Presently, a handful of studies from different countries offer a conflicting view of whether natural immunity actually is superior to vaccinated immunity, or a combination of prior infection and vaccination.
Since it's likely the federal government's aim to roll out vaccine mandates that cover practically every US worker, the issue of natural vs. vaccine immunity and whether some individuals should receive exemptions based on their antibody levels almost certainly be adjudicated in the federal courts.
As we reported when it was first published, a report out of Israel suggests that natural immunity could be many times more effective than the Pfizer vaccine at preventing infection with the delta variant.
As far as supporting natural vs. vaccinated immunity goes, this study is another big one: A C A June study by the Cleveland Clinic and Washington University tracked 52,238 Cleveland Clinic employees found that within 1,359 previously infected and unvaccinated people, none contracted a subsequent COVID-19 infection over the five-month study.
The legal and scientific standards are intertwined here, but as more data develops that appears to validate the argument that natural immunity is at least as effective as vaccinated immunity, it's more likely that lawyers will succeed in convincing judges that the standard should be "Immunity by any means."
Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Lawyers & Scientists Are Building A Case For Why Natural Immunity Should Be Treated Same As Vaccination
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment