4 ms·
>Do the people who are refusing a vaccine because they were already infected have a good point now? Not from this, because a vaccine does not cancel 'natural'
by yyyk 5y ago
>Do the people who are refusing a vaccine because they were already infected have a good point now?
Not from this, because a vaccine does not cancel 'natural' immunity. In fact this study and others show previously infected people which get vaccinated get better immunity.
If their argument was that they'd rather have the dose go for someone else they would have had a better point, but it's obvious they'd benefit from a single dose.
- babesh 5y agoThis says that natural immunity is 18x better. There is virtually no need for the vaccine.
- admax88qqq 5y agoUhhh... Is that the only metric by which a vaccine is evaluated?
- babesh 5y agoAs far as you taking it, pretty much yes. The unvaccinated can take it. That is of better community benefit. There is barely any additional protection for you.
- admax88qqq 5y agoThe vaccine also hells reduce the severity of infection.
- yyyk 5y agoWe need to separate public policy (where I live getting a shot is entirely optional for previously infected) and the individual decision to get vaccinated. For the individual, the risk of reinfection is still higher than the risk of a vaccine. Also note the small risk of a false positive for the initial COVID diagnosis.
- babesh 5y agoI misread the 13 for an 18. It is 13x with a relatively wide confidence interval. Another commentator pointed this out to me.