3 ms·

well I'd assume that one can also get more immunity thru more vaccine shots and it's a much less risky strategy (aka no virus that can self-replicate) than inte

• beerandt 5y ago
  Not by the logic that's been applied up to now. "Better immunity is worth the personal risk of vaccination" is the mantra that's been repeated over and over to those who already had covid. All of a sudden risk-benefit analysis is debatable? Why is breakthrough infection not a risk worth taking, but vaccine side effects are? Especially vaccine risk vs the limited marginal benefit for those with natural immunity?
  • jimkleiber 5y ago
    If the breakthrough infection risk is lower to oneself and to others than the vaccine risk is to oneself and to others, then I think it would make sense to encourage people to expose themselves to the virus as a way to increase immunity. I currently believe that the vaccine is much lower short-term risk to oneself (and especially to others) than getting a breakthrough infection. I also believe that the vaccines probably have lower medium- and long-term risks as well. So yes, for me, if the risk equation changes, I'd be open to changing course. Until then, vaccines seem to be much lower in risk to oneself and to others than the virus itself. Would you agree?
    • beerandt 5y ago
      I agree the logic is internally consistent. I also think it's absolutely absurd and that people will justify anything. Especially if they're already committed to it, and don't want to find out they're previous actions were nothing but show. Including "you should intentionally get sick to prevent you from possibly unintentionally getting sick."
      • jimkleiber 5y ago
        Which actions do you think were for show?