4 ms·
Can't be emphasized enough. Even if simplified down to three groups: 1) immunologically naive (never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2) 2) vaccinated 3) recovered f
by criticaltinker 5y ago
Can't be emphasized enough. Even if simplified down to three groups:
1) immunologically naive (never been exposed to SARS-CoV-2)
2) vaccinated
3) recovered from previous infection
Most discussions on HN completely miss the distinction between these groups. The truth is, so far scientific consensus indicates that groups 2 & 3 are at least equally well protected and pose equivalent risk to others.
Much of the bickering here conflates groups 1 & 3 - it's such a common mistake I've grown tired of trying to discuss it.
- moistly 5y ago> The truth is, so far scientific consensus indicates that groups 2 & 3 are at least equally well protected and pose equivalent risk to others. Which reduces the set to two: immunologically naïve, and primed for an immune response. Or as we like to call it, unvaccinated and vaccinated. Edit: vaccination via live virus is absurdly foolish.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoAside from yourself, who is this "we" who likes to mislead in this way?
- moistly 5y agoIt’s me and my worms, buddy. Royal worms.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoTypical anti scientific FUD spreading trolls then. Got it.
- moistly 5y agoLive virus vaccination is (was) a thing. There is nothing unscientific about stating that there are only two classes of people: vaccinated against sars-cov-2 spike protein, and not vaccinated against the same.
- throwawaylinux 5y agoStop peddling this idiotic pseudoscientific drivel designed to misinform people.
- dragonwriter 5y ago> The truth is, so far scientific consensus indicates that groups 2 & 3 are at least equally well protected and pose equivalent risk to others. If they are, then the immunologically naive are even worse off than vaccinated/unvaccinated data suggests, making vaccination even more critical for anyone without a certainly-known prior infection.