4 ms·

What's "right" and what's "wrong" are such subjective things. All I really care about is the science and the science as far as I can tell is overwhelmingly in f

What's "right" and what's "wrong" are such subjective things. All I really care about is the science and the science as far as I can tell is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that you should still get a vaccine even if you have natural immunity.

torstenvl 5y ago
Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. The position you articulate is certainly in vogue at the moment but I'm not aware of any study that supports it, let alone one that's methodologically sound.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. Could you elaborate on that cryptic statement? What is the science saying, and what are the scientists saying? What is the difference and why does it matter here?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jollybean 5y ago
It's not so much Science as it is Public Health Policy informed by the Science. The distinction is important because were dealing with masses of people here, not some kind of simple objective reality. If we all acted very rationally and conscientiously, the world would be a totally different place.
temp8964 5y ago
Where did you get that science?
- shlant 5y ago
  "being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated"[1] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
  - temp8964 5y ago
    https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/01/cdc-as-bad-as-harvard-no-but-they-could-still-do-better/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/01/cdc-as-bad...
    - shlant 5y ago
      that correction is not relevant to this thread. The title is misleading when talking about vaccines alone vs infection alone, but it is not misleading in regards to this discussion - "you should still get a vaccine even if you have natural immunity". The study DID show that vaccine + infection is better than just infection. Here is more evidence: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-people-covid-still-get-vaccinated-rcna1974 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-p...
      - temp8964 5y ago
        Lol. This is not a reason for mandate.
        shlant 5y ago
        this comment thread was not about the legitimacy of mandates but feel free to pivot
mbg721 5y ago
So what happens in a year or two if, however unlikely it may seem now, bad medium-to-long term effects of the vaccines start to show up? After spending this much political capital, no one could ever afford to admit that the unvaccinated, especially those who already had COVID, had a point. So would there just be a huge cover-up, or would They (with a capital T) push propaganda that says "The science has changed, but the people who didn't follow the previous science were lucky and unpatriotic!"?
- flyingcircus3 5y ago
  There are already all sorts of demonstrable long term effects of COVID. No speculation necessary. How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    > How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point? Rhetorical question, but: Given what we know about long term effects of vaccination, about 3-4 months without "long term effects". Needless to say, this mark has been passed more than once - in trials in 2020, and then again in mass vaccination programs in 2021.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    People are about to be coerced into an injection against their will and could suffer ill effects, with no legal recourse. If it turns out they were right, then they were screaming the truth the whole time and nobody listened. Are you okay with all that?
    - flyingcircus3 5y ago
      People are already catching a devastating disease against their will, and are already suffering ill effects. Are you beginning to see how all of your speculation about hypotheticals has real world analogs that are already occuring?

torstenvl 5y ago

Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. The position you articulate is certainly in vogue at the moment but I'm not aware of any study that supports it, let alone one that's methodologically sound.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. Could you elaborate on that cryptic statement? What is the science saying, and what are the scientists saying? What is the difference and why does it matter here?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jollybean 5y ago

It's not so much Science as it is Public Health Policy informed by the Science. The distinction is important because were dealing with masses of people here, not some kind of simple objective reality. If we all acted very rationally and conscientiously, the world would be a totally different place.

temp8964 5y ago

Where did you get that science?

shlant 5y ago
"being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated"[1] [1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...
- temp8964 5y ago
  https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/01/cdc-as-bad-as-harvard-no-but-they-could-still-do-better/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2021/10/01/cdc-as-bad...
  - shlant 5y ago
    that correction is not relevant to this thread. The title is misleading when talking about vaccines alone vs infection alone, but it is not misleading in regards to this discussion - "you should still get a vaccine even if you have natural immunity". The study DID show that vaccine + infection is better than just infection. Here is more evidence: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-people-covid-still-get-vaccinated-rcna1974 https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-p...
    - temp8964 5y ago
      Lol. This is not a reason for mandate.
      - shlant 5y ago
        this comment thread was not about the legitimacy of mandates but feel free to pivot

mbg721 5y ago

So what happens in a year or two if, however unlikely it may seem now, bad medium-to-long term effects of the vaccines start to show up? After spending this much political capital, no one could ever afford to admit that the unvaccinated, especially those who already had COVID, had a point. So would there just be a huge cover-up, or would They (with a capital T) push propaganda that says "The science has changed, but the people who didn't follow the previous science were lucky and unpatriotic!"?

flyingcircus3 5y ago
There are already all sorts of demonstrable long term effects of COVID. No speculation necessary. How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point?
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  > How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point? Rhetorical question, but: Given what we know about long term effects of vaccination, about 3-4 months without "long term effects". Needless to say, this mark has been passed more than once - in trials in 2020, and then again in mass vaccination programs in 2021.
- mbg721 5y ago
  People are about to be coerced into an injection against their will and could suffer ill effects, with no legal recourse. If it turns out they were right, then they were screaming the truth the whole time and nobody listened. Are you okay with all that?
  - flyingcircus3 5y ago
    People are already catching a devastating disease against their will, and are already suffering ill effects. Are you beginning to see how all of your speculation about hypotheticals has real world analogs that are already occuring?