3 ms·
> But if it's true that natural immunity + vaccination) is stronger than vaccination alone, is it worth it to leave her unvaccinated against Covid, at least for
by orangeoxidation 5y ago
> But if it's true that natural immunity + vaccination) is stronger than vaccination alone, is it worth it to leave her unvaccinated against Covid, at least for now, in order to get some natural immunity
No? If she does not get infected after vaccination the job is done. The goal is not 'theoretical maximum protection' the job is 'not getting sick'.
If she gets infected after vaccination (very possible), she will have less risk during infection and have improved protection after.
Vaccination first and then infection is definitely safer than the other way around.
Ofc the risk for young children is low either way, so going with the low risk of being unvaccinated might be something you are ok with.
But getting infected to get best protection against infection is kinda backwards.
- ethbr0 5y agoParent's goal is theoretical maximum protection. To which there appears to be a difference between infection + vaccination, vs vaccination + infection.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoBut the point is, if you're trying to get maximum protection from infection (the implicit being the damage that is caused from being infected), getting infected first seems to truly miss the point of the goal. You're taking on all of the risk of getting infected, in an effort toward lowering the risk of being infected.
- seba_dos1 5y agoTo achieve maximum protection from infection you could simply kill your children before they have a chance to get infected. Is "theoretical maximum protection" really the goal?