Over the weekend, the New York Times published an article about people who are willing to take monoclonal antibodies once they’ve been infected by COVID-19, but are unwilling to get vaccinated. What is bizarre is that both the vaccine and monoclonal antibodies are new and not ‘natural’:
The answer turned out to be monoclonal antibodies, a year-old, laboratory-created drug no less experimental than the vaccine.
Of course, there are reasons why monoclonal antibodies seem safe and effective, while vaccines don’t:
One factor driving the demand is that many patients, including vaccine skeptics, have been spreading the word about their seemingly miraculous recoveries….
As a result, health officials have warned that vaccine skeptics may become so enamored of monoclonal antibodies that they become even more resistant to getting a protective shot.
Within days of his infusion, Mr. Jones, the patient in Houston, had left the bedroom where he had been quarantined and returned to his work as a landscape architect. But he was still weighing whether to be vaccinated.
His doctor was pushing for the shot, he said. But the monoclonal antibodies had worked so well that he was tempted to simply return for another infusion if he caught Covid-19 again.
“If I can go get an infusion and feel as good as I do right now, man, I’d rather not take a vaccine that has just been developed,” he said. “That makes me nervous, still.”
This is why we need vaccine requirements: because people are making stupid and ignorant choices about vaccination (as the NYT notes, monoclonal antibodies also have “just been developed.”) While the word ignorant has become a synonym for racist, this landscape architect is ignorant: he is making a bad decision based on erroneous information that will have consequences for other people. And, some asshole with a blog has been saying since the outset, the goal isn’t just to protect you from COVID-19, it’s to protect people from you when you are infected.
We’ll have another example tomorrow.