Cindy Morris, left, and Swarnamala Ratnayaka prepare RNA for testing for the new coronavirus at the molecular pathology lab at Tulane University School of Medicine in New Orleans, Thursday, April 2, 2020. The test is identical to the PCR test being used by the Centers for Disease Control to ease the testing crisis and stop the spread of COVID-19, which has hit the New Orleans area especially hard. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

“Verr ahr yore pepers?”

Who would have thought we’d hear THAT phrase in the United States circa 2020?

Believe it or not, the possibility of ‘immunity papers’ for those with antibodies to the Wuhan flu has been on the table for a while, courtesy of ‘the smart people’. The notion is that those who test positive for antibodies would get papers saying they can go back to work without risk of spreading the virus.

A few weeks ago, CNN floated the idea to Herr Doctorfuhrer Anthony Fauci, and His Incompetence had this to say:

You know, that’s possible. It’s one of those things that we talk about when we want to make sure that we know who the vulnerable people are and not — this is something that’s being discussed. I think it might actually have some merit under certain circumstances.

The very fact that this is “being discussed” and spoken of to the pretend media–a Lindsay Lohanesque lapse in judgement if ever there was one–tells you just how disconnected Fauci & Friends are from planet earth and the reality sane people inhabit.


Has Fauci EVER been to the DMV? Has he no conception of what a fustercluck would unfold, were the government to attempt immunity certifications? Stanford law professor Henry T. Greely notes:

If immunity certificates provide benefits, people will want them. They may be willing to provide test results from phony laboratories (I can imagine an entire underground industry springing up to meet this demand) or might lie about their own past symptoms. Some people would use another’s immunity certificate, unless it had a driver’s license-like photograph and identifying information or required thumbprints, retinal scans, or other identity verification, raising new privacy issues. And a black market in forged immunity certificates would likely arise.

Professor Greely hits on practical weaknesses of immunity papers; but he doesn’t even discuss the equally troublesome logistical issues and costs of implementing them. If the past is any guide, logistical issues virtually guarantee the program would be slow, buggy, and end up NOT functioning as intended–just another bureaucratic pain in the butt for Americans already exhausted and struggling, courtesy of our ever-growing Leviathan.

Greely also does not touch on the center of the matter: Immunity papers are immoral, unconstitutional, un-American, totalitarian horse pucky–like much of the centrally-engineered response to the Wuhan virus.

You know who else is talking about ‘immunity papers’? Zee Germans (of course), the Italians (a.k.a. ‘the world’s great systemizers’), and the police state formerly known as England.

Good grief, the company we keep these days! George Orwell must be having a good chuckle.

The US government fancies it may prohibit citizens from going out and earning a living–that the state may deprive a citizen of liberty AND property at a whack without due process–because he or she HASN’T had an illness?

In any free country, the ‘smart people’ should be terrified to so much as whisper ‘immunity papers’, lest patriots drag them into the streets and bandit-hang them from the nearest piece of horizontal timber with a sign stapled to their chests: “Sic semper tyrannis.”


As with many of the virus ‘solutions’, immunity papers seem calculated to bring as much suffering to the American people as possible in the name of dubious ‘safety’.

Even the theory is wrong-headed. By only allowing those with immunity papers to rejoin society, the government punts on natural herd immunity, leaving the elderly and immunocompromised vulnerable for longer. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, writes in ‘Delaying herd immunity is costing lives’:

Most anti-vaxxers are highly educated but still argue against vaccination. We now face a similar situation with ‘anti-herders’, who view herd immunity as a misguided optional strategy rather than a scientifically  proven phenomenon that can prevent unnecessary deaths.

Because of its virulence, wide spread and the many asymptomatic cases it causes, Covid-19 cannot be contained in the long run, and so all countries will eventually reach herd immunity. To think otherwise is naive and dangerous. General lockdown strategies can reduce transmission and death counts in the short term. But this strategy cannot be considered successful until lockdowns are removed without the disease resurging ….

The question is not whether to aim for herd immunity as a strategy, because we will all eventually get there. The question is how to minimise casualties until we get there. Since Covid-19 mortality varies greatly by age, this can only be accomplished through age-specific countermeasures. We need to shield older people and other high-risk groups until they are protected by herd immunity.

Fauci & Friends appear to be engaging in bureaucratic machinations. They are suppressing the body count now and deferring deaths to save face, at the cost of burning down the economy. And why not? They risk very little themselves in doing so. Kulldorff adds:

Among anti-herders, it is popular to compare the current number of Covid-19 deaths by country and as a proportion of the population. Such comparisons are misleading, as they ignore the existence of herd immunity. A country much closer to herd immunity will ultimately do better even if their current death count is somewhat higher. The key statistic is instead the number of deaths per infected. Those data are still elusive, but comparisons and strategies should not be based on misleading data just because the relevant data are unavailable.

While it is not perfect, Sweden has come closest to an age-based strategy by keeping elementary schools, stores and restaurants open, while older people are encouraged to stay at home. Stockholm may become the first place to reach herd immunity, which will protect high-risk groups better than anything else until there is a cure or vaccine.

The strategy of the technocrats in control of our society right now rings hollow from a scientific perspective. But more importantly, their strategy–including the morally repugnant notion of immunity papers–bulldozes civil liberties without which life isn’t worth living for a free people.

One can only hope Americans will revolt and tell the technocrats to pound sand. Immunity papers might just do the trick.

So go ahead Fauci: make my day.