One thing that stands out is that the group that has been previously infected (both unvaccinated and single-jabbed post-infection) has been selected for survival already. I personally wouldn't draw the conclusion they propose from that population.
They didnt say that the most least at risk people should get infected. I interpreted their guidence to be more in line with what you just said "Avoid infection, because we do not yet know if this virus induces long-term immunity, as many other similar viruses do not."
Hard to imagine that infection and recovery from the actual virus confers less immunity than the vaccine, but even without knowing that, it seems reasonable that people who have already recovered should be a lower priority for vaccination than more at-risk groups.
It might be that you alluded to the term “natural immunity” which now comes with extra baggage.
There seems to be a recent talking point for “natural immunity”, and two of my [uk based!] friends who seem to end up on the wrong side of every issue are parroting this. They are somehow both tuned in to US YouTube talking heads, Tucker etc despite being in the UK.
The message that is being pushed as I understand it is “let the virus rip” since if(!) you come through unscathed you will end up with better immunity? Maybe I misunderstand it but they both in a “anti covid vaxx” stance so I think that’s their reasoning - it is somehow better to take your chances with the virus than get the vaccine.
Rather, accepting that people will get infected and proposing that if it's limited to healthy people, the community will develop a "herd immunity" due to the healthy people's new immunity.
I definitely wouldn't jump to this conclusion. Even the optimistic conclusion here would be something like you have a lower chance of getting infected and/or lower chance of severe income. But not immunity.
I’m assuming because you are sure having it once will give you some immunity? It’s really unclear if that is true and I respectfully disagree with those who same it is more likely than not.
But, that's not what sterilising immunity means. The fact that previously infected individuals were infected again means that their natural infection did not provide sterilising immunity. Better immunity? That's debatable, but it's not, by any definition I've seen, sterilising immunity.
Sure, but for someone who has already /survived/, it's worth knowing the value of those antibodies. And it's worth knowing that governments should not attack those survivors further for "not getting vaccinated" when they already have antibodies.
Worth noting that I'm not anti-vaccine but there's not enough focus on natural immunity. And I'm not encouraging people to forego vaccines and to go lick doorhandles
I. AM. NOT. SUGGESTING. TO. USE. INFECTIONS. TO. GET. IMMUNITY.
:)
I'm only considering already acquired immunity from past infections. And I've given an example on how that's relevant. It's probably another example of polarization that you're assuming almost by default that I'm an enemy anti-vaxxer (I'm not). Oh well, nothing else to do that to keep talking, and hoping civilized conversation helps.
No need to double up on the unknown risks of you already have immunity.
reply