2 ms·

Here is why this is a bad hypothetical: 1) You are assuming that the current set of vaccines will stop the spread of this disease. This is already in doubt due

Here is why this is a bad hypothetical: 1) You are assuming that the current set of vaccines will stop the spread of this disease. This is already in doubt due to break away strains. In fact, it's possible that the currently vaccinated will be more susceptible to spread the new strains. This week's mask mandate was all about the vaccinated spreading the delta strain and having more viral load in their nose . Naturally gained immunity is know to offer more protection from being reinfected with the virus. People that carry antibodies because they had the disease are more resilient because their immune system recognizes the virus by more than just the spike protein. 2. You are assuming 22,000,000 would otherwise get infected with Covid. This is not necessarily true. Young people don't get sick. Herd immunity, therapeutics and better future treatments make this unlikely. 3. We don't know the long term effects of the vaccine yet, thus can't make an ultimate call on the actual comparative rates of deaths. Hypothetically, what if the vaccine reduces life expectancy by 10 years, of millions of people. Would it still be better than natural herd immunity.

croes 5y ago
1) Studies show that vaccinated don't stop the spread of the variants but still slow it down compared to the not vaccinated. >In fact, it's possible that the currently vaccinated will be more susceptible to spread the new strains. On what is that assumption based? The vaccination effect is based on normal antibodies of the immune system, so there is no big difference between vaccinated and recovered. 2) You are confusing infection with infection disease. You can be sure you will get infected by the corona virus but that doesn't mean you'll get COVID. If 22,000,000 people get the corona virus if with low IFR like 0.003 you get 660 deaths and that's only for people under 30. Additionally you are ignoring the effect of the variants you are referencing in 1) Young people are more likely to get sick by the variants and herd immunity is based on antibodies and therefore have the same problem as he vaccine based antibodies. A new variant could make them equally useless. 3) We don't know the long term effects by corona either. In contrast to the vaccines, we have already found evidence of organ damage in the heart , lungs and kidneys with Corona, which may not disappear even in the long term. The bottom line is that the risk without vaccination is much higher than with vaccination.

croes 5y ago

1) Studies show that vaccinated don't stop the spread of the variants but still slow it down compared to the not vaccinated. >In fact, it's possible that the currently vaccinated will be more susceptible to spread the new strains. On what is that assumption based? The vaccination effect is based on normal antibodies of the immune system, so there is no big difference between vaccinated and recovered. 2) You are confusing infection with infection disease. You can be sure you will get infected by the corona virus but that doesn't mean you'll get COVID. If 22,000,000 people get the corona virus if with low IFR like 0.003 you get 660 deaths and that's only for people under 30. Additionally you are ignoring the effect of the variants you are referencing in 1) Young people are more likely to get sick by the variants and herd immunity is based on antibodies and therefore have the same problem as he vaccine based antibodies. A new variant could make them equally useless. 3) We don't know the long term effects by corona either. In contrast to the vaccines, we have already found evidence of organ damage in the heart , lungs and kidneys with Corona, which may not disappear even in the long term. The bottom line is that the risk without vaccination is much higher than with vaccination.