51 ms·
That assumption is based on the belief that an infection prevents reinfection, i.e. an infection is just as good at protecting a (recovered) patient as a vaccin
by PartiallyTyped 5y ago
That assumption is based on the belief that an infection prevents reinfection, i.e. an infection is just as good at protecting a (recovered) patient as a vaccine is at protecting an uninfected person.
But we have seen that Delta reinfects previously infected patients, ergo, an infection is at a best a leaky vaccine (ie as good as current vaccines, though there are indications that it is not [1]), and at worse, a catalyst to worse outcomes considering the danger done during previous infection, b) a vaccine is not offered to the previously infected, c) the effects of long term covid.
[1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...
- Aerroon 5y agoBut people that have been vaccinated have also been infected. Why would you call it a leaky vaccine when the vaccine leaks too? Or am I mistaken here?
- PartiallyTyped 5y agoI didn't mean to imply that the vaccines we use aren't leaky, they are. Even so, there are indications that getting the vaccine provides more effective defense than getting infected [1]. [1] https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...
- gunapologist99 5y agoFor some reason, I misread that to be "https://dictatorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-generated-from-covid-19-vaccines-differs-from-an-infection/ https://dictatorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...".. and then I realized that I was right after all.