Following the implementation of the health pass in France in August 2021, a major constraint has been imposed on flight crew members in the airline industry. Depending on the destination, they must present proof of a vaccine injection or a PCR test, less than 24 hours old. The law on the vaccine pass voted in haste in January 2022 reinforces our fears.
Since the injection is an irreversible act, it is essential to take the time to rigorously analyze these two options in order to make an intelligent and thoughtful choice. We propose here to carry out a « D.O.R.D.A.R. » type of analysis, as we learn to do in civil aviation.
D : DIAGNOSE
A new coronavirus, known as SARS-CoV-2, with a lethality estimated to be around 0.2-0.3%, the equivalent to a severe influenza, emerged in late 2019 in China, after likely circulating quietly for several months.
O : OPTIONS
Option A: Making the choice of injection.
The official clinical trials will not be completed until late 2022 or mid-2023, depending on the manufacturer. We are therefore in the experimental phase.
This is the first time that such a technology has been used on a large scale, in humans.
The exact content of the injected product remains, to this day, an industrial secret.
This content does not include any pathogenic element of SARS-COV2, but simply a genetic message sent to our cells.
The manufacturers have signed a disclaimer agreement with the Governements regarding side effects.
No vaccine against any coronavirus has so far, proven its real efficiency in animal model.
Option B: Refusing the injection and privileging prevention : caring for our natural immune system and using possible early treatments.
Note : we observe a very strong opposition against early treatments from the authorities, especially in the West, in rich countries, where the links between the pharmaceutical industry and the decision makers are tenuous.
R : RISKS / BENEFITS
D : DECISION
Each individual flight crew member must be able to choose between the risks associated with the injection of an experimental product and the risk of being naturally infected. However, in order, for this choice to be free and informed, and for consent not to be withheld, the information available, to each individual must be impartial and of good quality. This site aims to contribute to the debate, by being as informed as possible.
A : ASSIGN
Whatever the individual's choice, they must be informed, free and respected. It is not a question here of criticizing the choices of some and others. What is at stake is our freedom of opinion, to be able to choose what we think is best for our health and physical integrity. It is therefore fundamental that each of us show tolerance and open-mindedness towards our colleagues. If a flight crew member opts for option B, there should be no impediment to the right to prescribe, in our country; no psychological pressure or threat of salary suspension should be imaginable.
R : REVIEW
If, in the future, new data were to appear, for example, a classic vaccine with deactivated virus, a technique that has been mastered and has proven its efficacy and safety, as the Nantes-based company, Valvena, has planned (they are currently in phase 3 trials), we could repeat the FORDEC loop, with new options, which would, de facto, allow for new informed individual decisions.
It is worth noting that the most vaccinated countries (Israel, Singapore, Australia, Iceland) are unfortunately, now experiencing a major epidemic resurgence. If we compare with Sweden, which has never confined its population, never imposed masking, nor vaccination, and which is the country in the world where the epidemic of variant delta has been the lowest, we can therefore affirm, and, this was the whole point of the Great Barrington Declaration, that it seems to be the collective immunization of a population that stops an epidemic due to a new pathogen, rather than a single solution in favor of "all vaccine" which, a fortiori, could lead to a lasting and destructive crisis.
The argument that a « vaccinated » flight crew member would protect others better than a non-vaccinated one, deserves a comment: all serious studies, i.e. without conflict of interest, show that vaccinated people have a viral load equivalent to that of non-vaccinated people, or even higher (IHU study in Marseille), in case of infection. In reality, and according to Jay Bhattacharya, professor of epidemiology at Stanford University and co-signatory of the indispensable Great Barrington Declaration, « anyone who advocates compulsory vaccination is in fact largely against vaccination », since they would seem to reject the very principle of the vaccine according to Pasteur : a prior infection gives robust immunity through the production of natural antibodies.
In a final analysis, and whatever the promoters of mass vaccination may say, a vaccine is an individual protection, and certainly not a collective protection; this is based on a recent study showing that the vaccination rates by country do not influence the shape of the epidemic.