Skip to content

LETTER: Retired doc says pilot refusing jab needs crash course on research

It's disheartening not that he could lose his job but that he is leaving himself unprotected and putting others at risk, says letter writer
COVID-19 Vaccine 6

OrilliaMattters welcomes letters to the editor ([email protected]). This letter is in reference to a story published Oct. 9, titled, 'Orillia pilot refuses to get vaccine, in peril of losing job.'
********************
I read the story about the Orillia pilot declining COVID vaccination with interest - and dismay. While I admire and respect the decision he has made, which will likely cause him to lose the job he loves, I have to question the sources and validity of the research upon which he bases this decision.

Unlike others who subscribe to wild theories and misconceptions about the vaccines, this man is obviously thoughtful and intelligent and has identified "variables" and "concerns" that have led to his decision.

Unfortunately, based on the one specific comment he makes about transmission, I have to conclude that he is overlooking or misunderstanding the current, validated data about COVID vaccinations.

Although I am a retired physician, I am by no means an expert in this field. Like the pilot, I therefore have done my own reading on the subject - and have come to a completely different conclusion about the efficacy and safety of the vaccines.

On a personal level, there can be no doubt, either from clinical trials or real world experience, that the vaccines are highly effective. They reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19 by up to 90%, and dramatically reduce the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, ICU care and death.

While breakthrough infections do occur, those that cause significant disease are generally in patients with underlying co- morbidities. As the pilot notes, there is also a public health side to the rationale for promoting vaccination, and his statement about transmission of the virus three months after vaccination is simply not supported by any data.

Since only 10% of fully vaccinated people are likely to get even asymptomatic infection, the larger that portion of the population becomes, the less risk of transmission to others.

As for waning protection from transmission following vaccination, studies show that there is indeed a slow decline - but not to anywhere near zero. Moreover, viral shedding is reduced, except from those few patients who do get severely ill, and the virus that is shed appears to be less infective because of its interaction with host antibodies. The vaccines, therefore, remain highly effective in reducing transmission.

There is nothing we do in medicine that comes with a 100% guarantee - we always balance risk vs. benefit. In this case, the benefit, both to the person and the population at large, is unequivocal. The risks are minimal in number and severity, including the very small chance that, over time, protection from both infection and transmission will diminish.

I would encourage the pilot to rethink his position. What is disheartening about his story is not the potential loss of his livelihood: it is the fact that he is leaving himself unprotected, and therefore posing a risk to others, based on what appears to be incomplete or inaccurate information.

Larry Grossman
Orillia

********************