I don't support vaccine passports for a variety of reasons. However, if it comes to the crunch and I must carry and show papers to put bread on our family's table, there might be a lesser of two evils: instead of the vaccine passport, I'd prefer to carry an immunity passport. However, before we discuss this matter, let's talk about the merits of naturally acquired immunity which is what one gets after one catches an infection in the wild.
Let's assume that there are now tens, if not hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders, here and overseas who have knowingly or unknowingly had the COVID infection, recovered and now, presumed to have lasting immunity. There are many questions about this that I'd like to have answered, such as:
How many NZ citizens are there who have naturally acquired immunity?
How does this compare with the immunity gained from the mRNA vaccine?
How broad are vaccine-induced and naturally acquired immunity?
How long does each of these last?
Does a person who demonstrates naturally acquired immunity benefit from having the vaccine?
These are fair questions to ask. However, those running the show seem incapable of providing answers. It leaves people wondering why. I wonder why myself.
Think about it: if there are already many people who have a natural immunity to the bug, then we can save wads of precious money because they don't need the jab!
Another question to ask is why there is not widespread availability of antibody testing? If the answer is that there are still questions surrounding the reliability of these tests, the most obvious response is there has been more than enough time to sort this out, so why haven't they?
Is it not the goal to achieve herd immunity, thus causing the bug to "burn out"? Of course, it is! A vaccine is merely a tool in the process of gaining herd immunity, so it is immunity that we should be testing for and certifying.
Immunity is the key. If a person is vaccinated, it is wrong to say that they then have immunity from the infection and bear in mind that immunity gained from the mRNA jab may be too narrow and too short-lived to protect from mutations. Furthermore, we can not assume a vaccinated person is protected because some people may have a weak immune response, whereas others may have a strong one. So, a vaccine passport may be misleading about a person's immune status. We need to be measuring immunity and not just vaccination status. Thus, a vaccine passport is meaningless, and it may be putting the bearer and others at risk by giving everyone a false sense of security.
A vaccine is merely a tool in the process of gaining herd immunity, so it is immunity that we should be testing for and certifying if it is the certification they demand of us.
Finally, the evidence is growing by the day supporting the opinion that naturally acquired immunity is superior to the vaccine and longer-lasting, plus that there is probably no benefit for them to be vaccinated: