One of the serious drawbacks in the fight against the Covid-19 infection is the lack of a therapeutic agent that will actively kill the coronavirus. Vaccination, by principle, prevents infection from overwhelming a person’s defense system. However, it is meaningless to people already infected.
Vaccination is not a treatment option. It is only a preventive option.
The only medication against Sars-Cov-2 coronavirus is an antiviral medication. Right now, no new medication has been developed to do that.
However, several reports of existing drugs, such as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, effective against Covid-19 infection emerged recently. Unfortunately, health authorities prevented their use on the grounds of toxicity.
The reasoning: Since these medications are used in different diseases, then these are toxic for use against Covid-19. Any Philosophy 101 can see this argument as non-sequitur. It is so because it follows two erroneous assumptions.
First assumption: A medication for one disease cannot be used in another disease. This is against the facts. Even hydroxychloroquine, which is indicated in malaria, is also used against lupus erythematosus and rheumatoid arthritis. These three diseases have nothing in common except inflammation.
Second assumption: A medication for one disease is toxic (unsafe) for use in another disease. This is also against the definition of safety and facts of safety, especially when applying the argument for Covid-19 vaccination, which I have argued in a previous article.
Hydroxychloroquine has a 70-year track record of safety, at least as a medication for malaria. Ivermectin has 40 years of safety track record, as medication for strongyloidiasis, onchocerciasis, head pediculosis and rosacea. Meanwhile, any of the Covid-19 vaccines today must be used under an “emergency use” regime because these simply do not have that safety track record. To argue that it is proven safe is wrong.
If, we assume, the Covid-19 vaccines are equally safe and equally effective, vaccines are only reasonable for Filipinos that had not been infected by Sars-CoV-2 or recovered from the Covid-19 disease. Thus, the idea of “mandatory” vaccination should not apply for these individuals. Why immunize an infected or recovered patient?
If some Filipinos had gone through periods of asymptomatic state and overcame the infection, then they may have developed natural immunity against Covid-19 infection. Thus, the idea of “mandatory” vaccination should not also apply to them.
The current restriction to testing Covid-19 antigen is no longer adequate. I suggest that the Department of Health encourage Filipinos to have themselves tested with Covid-19 antibodies to determine if they are naturally immune already. Natural immunization is better than vaccination. The DOH can give a sigh of relief if half of Filipinos are antibody positive and thus, already naturally immune.