Why would the AHA care if an employee is vaccinated if they can show immunity?
This is even more confounding considering the evidence emerging that indicates a higher than expected re-infection rate with variant strains in previously vaccinated people.
Anyone who has ever been employed by a hospital in a patient care capacity will attest to fact that most hospital systems require proof of IMMUMITY from infectious agents such as Measles, Rubella, Chicken Pox and Hepatitis B and to be free of TB.
To satisfy these requirements, employers will usually accept either immunity surrogates such as antibody titers OR proof of having disease OR proof of immunization.
Why would hospitals, or any health care facility, move away from that standard and focused solely on vaccination status?
I have puzzled over this throughout the pandemic because in almost any area of discussion regarding SARS-Cov-2 prevention or public policy, there is a conspicuous lack of serious discussion regarding the role of natural immunity. It’s almost as if it doesn’t exist; but of course it does exist and there is mounting evidence that natural immunity may be more robust than vaccine-derived immunity. The recent spike in cases of Delta variants among those previously vaccinated may support that hypothesis.
Yet very few of the cases in the current wave are in those who recovered from COVID19 and derived immunity naturally.
Why is that fact being ignored while all the focus is on vaccine status, given what we know now?