3 ms·

Only one problem with your 1-2% risk calculation. In the US at least 100M people have survived infection. Subsidized vaccination of these people amounts to noth

Only one problem with your 1-2% risk calculation. In the US at least 100M people have survived infection. Subsidized vaccination of these people amounts to nothing more than payola on a massive scale.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
We actually don't know how many of these people have a current immunity, for several reasons, starting with when the infection happened and not ending with knowing who had what strain of the virus. It's also not clear every one of the 100M people would be able to reliable prove he had Covid-19. Or that it is possible to prevent people from somehow faking that proof. We do know that a vaccination after recovery results in even better immunity than natural immunity alone. So it's much cheaper to just vaccinate them and KNOW they are immune, rather than indulge in a massive bureaucratic nightmare about test results...
- CodeWriter23 5y ago
  Straw man argument detected: if one has to show a pass to get in somewhere, the bureaucratic load for assigning an “approved” status is equivalent whether is a test result or a proof of being jabbed.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    Nope, there are three vaccines, and (in the US) only one kind of document that proves vaccination with them. On the other hand, you'd either have to prove positive infection and recovery (with multiple test results) to someone (whom?) or to standardize some kind of antibody testing which also has to take place soon after the infection, because those antibodies don't last very long. The immunity might last longer, but the kind of antibodies that are modestly easy to detect, don't. But because of the nature of those kinds of tests, every single lab would need to be certified individually and there would need to be another step to actually issue some kind of certificate. So yes, to me it sounds massively more complicated and expensive than just getting two harmless vaccinations.

bayesian_horse 5y ago

We actually don't know how many of these people have a current immunity, for several reasons, starting with when the infection happened and not ending with knowing who had what strain of the virus. It's also not clear every one of the 100M people would be able to reliable prove he had Covid-19. Or that it is possible to prevent people from somehow faking that proof. We do know that a vaccination after recovery results in even better immunity than natural immunity alone. So it's much cheaper to just vaccinate them and KNOW they are immune, rather than indulge in a massive bureaucratic nightmare about test results...

CodeWriter23 5y ago
Straw man argument detected: if one has to show a pass to get in somewhere, the bureaucratic load for assigning an “approved” status is equivalent whether is a test result or a proof of being jabbed.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Nope, there are three vaccines, and (in the US) only one kind of document that proves vaccination with them. On the other hand, you'd either have to prove positive infection and recovery (with multiple test results) to someone (whom?) or to standardize some kind of antibody testing which also has to take place soon after the infection, because those antibodies don't last very long. The immunity might last longer, but the kind of antibodies that are modestly easy to detect, don't. But because of the nature of those kinds of tests, every single lab would need to be certified individually and there would need to be another step to actually issue some kind of certificate. So yes, to me it sounds massively more complicated and expensive than just getting two harmless vaccinations.