top of page

What's Wrong with this Picture?

What’s wrong with this picture?

While the CDC dictates to federal, state, and business authorities, the special treatment of those “fully vaccinated” is gaining momentum with headlines popping up everywhere as the below few will verify.

“‘Great day for America’: Vaccinated can largely ditch masks” (WECT News 6).

“No jab, no job,” declares Delta Air Lines CEO (WECT News 6).

Finally, “CDC announces fully vaccinated people can largely ditch masks indoors” (WGHP Fox 8)

But wait! What’s wrong with this picture? While I have no qualms with the elimination of all such “recommendations,” executive orders, and CEO ultimatums, the biased exclusion of those with natural immunities gained via infection by the virus itself is grounds for concern. Said concern rises from the facts that the natural immunities spawned by the actual virus are both sufficient and the desired standard for the development of any successful vaccine.

First of all, the body’s natural immunity gained by the virus is qualitatively sufficient. As noted by the National Institutes for Health, the virus itself provides the body with COVID fighting capabilities. Hence, a recovery from the actual virus provides all the components needed for protection. Not only does it involve “helper T cells that help recognize” the virus and then “Killer T cells” that do the dirty work, but as importantly, “immune memory might still be achieved through virus-specific memory T cells” which, even if antibodies eventually dissipate completely, still recognize the virus. So, even in the absence of antibodies more can be manufactured by B cells from cell memory. Remember, this protection rises naturally from having the virus rather than from either of the vaccines (

Because of cell memory and B cell production, this naturally gained immunity has also been confirmed to be durable. Noted in a recent study, and contrary to earlier findings suggesting that said immunity could be short lived, “COVID-19 patients who recovered from the disease still have a robust immunity from the coronavirus eight months after infection” (

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, while many questions remain regarding those immunities prompted by the virus and the vaccine, the natural immunities gained by the actual virus are the desired standard. In fact, and according to Dr. Daniela Weiskopf, “…Our studies showed that natural infection induced a strong response, and this study now shows that the responses last…We are hopeful,” Weiskopf continues, “that a similar pattern of responses lasting over time will also emerge for the vaccine-induced responses” (National Institutes of Health:

Did you get that? They “hope” to duplicate the same immunity and duration produced by the virus itself. The natural immunity spawned by the actual virus, then, is the model. It is the standard that vaccine makers desire to duplicate.

Additionally, Dr. Davide Robbiani of the Rockefeller University tells us that the study of those who have recovered from COVID-19 “could help guide the design of vaccines or antibodies as potential treatments for COVID-19…We now know,” continued Robiani, “what an effective antibody looks like…This is important information for people who are designing and testing vaccines. If they see their vaccine can elicit these antibodies, they know they are on the right track” (National Institutes of Health: Again, the natural immunities gained from the actual virus are admittedly the golden guideline for vaccine researchers and makers. Hence, not including the recovered with the “fully vaccinated” makes absolutely no sense.

So, what’s wrong with this picture? Since the immunity provided by the virus itself is both sufficient and the desired standard for vaccine makers, then why do federal, state, and local leaders ignore it? Why do they reduce restrictions only for those “fully” vaccinated and totally exclude those whose natural immunities stand as the coveted model? Is the standard itself not good enough or are they afraid of being outdone by the very nature they consistently reject in other areas of contention like sexuality and gender?

Again, what’s wrong with this picture?


114 views0 comments


Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet

Add a rating
bottom of page