Okay. Take two.
I thank everyone for the opportunity to speak today. The thoughts I'm presenting are my own, as an immunologist, and are not necessarily those of my affiliated organizations.
I have submitted notes that contain further data and references for the issues that I'll be addressing today. They involve Canada's vaccine mandates and the manner in which they have been implemented, which includes the lack of recognition of infection-acquired immunity and the suboptimal data collection and availability required to evaluate the efficacy and consequences of the public health policies and mandates to guide evidence-based decision-making.
Any time a medical intervention is mandated, it needs to meet a fairly high bar for its justification. We should have a solid understanding of both the safety and the efficacy of the intervention. Its purpose needs to be clearly stated. We need to ensure that we have in place ongoing surveillance to evaluate how well it is working to achieve its stated purpose.
With that base, a vaccine mandate may be justifiable if there is clear evidence that the vaccines we're using reliably prevent disease and its transmission; we have a clear grasp of their safety profile, which should be acceptable for prophylactic use for the disease in question; the mandate is not overly broad or unreasonable; and those subjected to the vaccine mandate can provide informed consent, which requires their understanding their own personal long- and short-term potential risk from vaccination in view of their own personal risk of severe disease from infection.
It is clear, especially with omicron, that the vaccines we have cannot really be relied upon to prevent either transmission or infection. As an example, the first omicron case in Israel came from a triple-vaccinated doctor returning from a conference, who passed it on to another triple-vaccinated physician. The omicron spread into many countries has been through fully vaccinated, often boosted, individuals. This really questions the validity of the current vaccine mandates for travel within and outside of Canada. Data from Ontario and other jurisdictions from around the world show that vaccine efficacy drops below zero after the end of the second month in those who are fully vaccinated. Boosters appear to show a similar rapid timeline for waning.
With this evidence, we should have moved quickly to lift heavy-handed measures and explain the evolving evidence. This is necessary for public trust. It is also good for public health to have a well-informed populace. Having a false sense of security has obvious negative consequences.
When it became evident during the delta wave that the mRNA vaccines had poor durability in their ability to prevent infection and transmission, the messaging justifying mandates shifted to the prevention of hospitalization and serious disease. If that was the new purpose, then Canadians with infection-acquired immunity should have had their superior immune protection recognized from the outset. The data have been unequivocally clear that those who have had COVID-19 and recovered are better protected—as would be expected—from infection, serious disease and death compared with those who are fully vaccinated. They would also be less likely to transmit infection if they get reinfected, as a greater mucosal immunity limits viral replication better, unlike those who are fully vaccinated and who experience a first breakthrough infection and can have viral loads very similar to immune-naive individuals.
Recent data from the U.S. CDC confirms that vaccinating those who have infection-acquired immunity really provides them no real additional benefit. Thus, these already immune individuals are primarily being exposed to unnecessary risks, as rare as they may be. They're also more likely to experience adverse effects following vaccination.
This lack of risk stratification for the blanket vaccine mandates has also been poorly considered for emerging vaccine-associated serious adverse effects. When the signal for vaccine-linked myocarditis appeared, it was repeatedly conveyed that the risk was far less than after COVID-19 infection. Data show that, actually, for males under 40, the risk of myocarditis is in fact greater after vaccination than following infection. The error in the statements previously made with respect to this risk was never publicly corrected, which means that these individuals haven't been given the opportunity to provide proper informed consent. We are requiring those who are probably among the least likely to experience serious disease to be subjected to a medical intervention for which they bear the greatest potential risk of a non-trivial nature.
As we move into the endemic phase of COVID-19 with omicron, I hope we take the opportunity to investigate how we could improve our strategy, especially around blanket mandates, for future pandemics, because they do have consequences.
I'll close now with a statement made recently by the head of vaccine strategy of the European Medicines Agency, the EMA, who had spoken directly to the lack of data and sustainability of continuing down the path of multiple boosters as a rational approach to the pandemic at this time. The EMA is aware that such an approach may actually do more immunological harm than good, and it is their position that further data is needed for the omicron variant, particularly with respect to the utility of the current vaccines and whether different types of vaccines are needed now.
Given the evidence, and its lack, I feel this is the most reasonable and responsible approach.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to these issues.