4 ms·
The burden of proof is not on the people who have every reason to believe they have natural immunity. It's entirely on people who want to mandate a medical pro
by TigeriusKirk 5y ago
The burden of proof is not on the people who have every reason to believe they have natural immunity.
It's entirely on people who want to mandate a medical procedure.
- tablespoon 5y ago> The burden of proof is not on the people who have every reason to believe they have natural immunity. > It's entirely on people who want to mandate a medical procedure. Nope, not really. While there is quite a high burden of proof on the people who want to mandate a medical procedure, the people who make their own medical claims (such as natural immunity provides equivalent or adequate protection) bear a significant burden of proof as well. Relieving them of that burden is completely impractical, since it would privilege all kinds of spurious claims. The vaccines have proven to be safe and effective. If you want another preventative treatment to be considered equivalent, prove it.
- TigeriusKirk 5y agoMaking a claim that matches centuries of experience carries virtually no burden of proof. It's not remotely a "spurious" claim.
- tablespoon 5y ago> Making a claim that matches centuries of experience carries virtually no burden of proof. It's not remotely a "spurious" claim. Huh? There are centuries of experience that natural COVID-19 immunity is as consistently effective as one of the current crop of US-approved vaccines?