A federal judge upheld a vaccine requirement. He allowed a professor to be fired, despite the fact that she had recovered from Covid and provided proof she already had antibodies.
The judge relied on a 1905 Supreme Court decision, Jacobson v Massachusetts. There the court allowed the city of Cambridge to require smallpox vaccination. This decision is not relevant to the current situation because:
1. The decision does not mention antibodies, which were hardly known in 1905. It does not mention people who recovered from smallpox.
2. The decision noted that vaccination is not required if the person has a letter from a physician stating that he or she is not a fit subject for vaccination.
In short, the 1905 decision is not applicable to the key points raised in the current case. The decision omits mention of preexisting immunity, but does mention physicians’ letters of exemption. One wonders whether the judge who decided the current case actually read the 1905 decision.
If persons recovered from Covid, it is unethical to require them to take a medicine they do not want and do not need. The risk of any side effects is not tolerable for an unneeded medicine. This is hardly an obscure point. It should be obvious to reasonable people. That it is not obvious to many people is a source of deep concern.
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. – George Orwell
The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism. ‒ William Osler, MD