3 ms·

This is the sort of valid point that one will tend to avoid discussing because it is likely to be misused by the ideological critics of vaccination. As an alte

This is the sort of valid point that one will tend to avoid discussing because it is likely to be misused by the ideological critics of vaccination. As an alternative I haven’t heard much of, updating the vaccines would seem to be a good option, as well? The first round was developed fast enough to almost outrun variants, so it should work quite well second time around. It’s important to avoid the naturalistic fallacy: infection is not necessarily better protection. That is why, for example, tetanus and rabies vaccines work even when given after infection.

rossdavidh 5y ago
Yes, but the actual results from Israel and elsewhere suggest that, in this case, infection is better protection. It's not the naturalistic fallacy, it's what we're actually seeing. Of course, vaccination is far, far better than nothing. But for a 5-year old, or a 50 year old who's already vaccinated, it's not clear that more vaccination is better than just having your immune system learn from the real thing. It's all a moot point, of course, since it seems like we're all getting exposed, regardless of what we want. Even white-tailed deer in Canada are getting covid-19, so it's not likely that humans living in cities are going to avoid it.
- phonypc 5y ago
  >Yes, but the actual results from Israel and elsewhere suggest that, in this case, infection is better protection. It's not the naturalistic fallacy, it's what we're actually seeing. What is this in reference to? All evidence I've seen points to vaccine provided immunity being more protective.