If he had Covid last month, the case for him not playing because he isn't vaccinated is pretty weak. If you want to say vaccination plus natural immunity is better than natural immunity, then great. But his natural immunity, particularly if it is from last month, should be sufficient. It's on par with vaccination. I am amazed at how stubborn policy makers still are in not carving out exceptions for natural immunity. That doesn't mean that your natural immunity is good forever, but it should buy you a certain amount of time. Say 6 months worth?
There are many significant problems with using natural immunity as a replacement for vaccination. The main issue is that it is completely variable how much immunity it provides - how much COVID exposure is needed to cause natural immunity equal to vaccination? With COVID vaccines we know how much each person received and the dosing has been specifically studied and is based on age - for the Pfizer product (Comirnaty), for example, 0.3 ml is given intramuscularly to people age 16 and older, twice, separated by 21 days (with the potential for a booster.) In addition, if natural immunity were to be used, would that be based on symptoms, rapid testing, PCR, or a combination of these? How would false positive results be handled? One might argue to use antibody levels following infection, but that is unsettled science and doesn't take into consideration T cell and other immunity. Using natural immunity as a replacement for vaccination is not a feasible approach.
Last edited: