4 ms·

> which is less variable, and more reliable. I am reading the opposite, in studies on Delta variant, or those whose last shot was more than 6 months prior....s

> which is less variable, and more reliable. I am reading the opposite, in studies on Delta variant, or those whose last shot was more than 6 months prior....some studies suggesting decreases below natural.

toss1 5y ago
perhaps, which vax program, which set? In any case, it's irrelevant - the article is arguing that previously infected ppl should not have to get the vax, and I've seen nothing indicating anything other than infection+vax is equal or greater than either option, and the infection immunity is highly variable in both strength and duration/decay. This matches the obviously wildly uncontrolled and highly variable factors in infection, including initial exposure load, viral strain, infected viral load, infection response & duration, etc. , vs a controlled standard dose of a highly tested vaccine. Frankly, as an employer, if anyone brought this to me trying to 'educate' me as to policy, they'd be doing themselves a disservice. The last thing any employer is going to want to do is setup some kind of parallel program to exempt previously infected people, checking another set of tests (how do we know you've been infected, was it with a strain that gives immunity to the current wild types?, how does that affect current immune response 8 months on?, etc.etc.etc.,). are you volunteering to run this program in YOUR spare time, and put yourself at personal legal risk? I thought not. Moreover it mostly shows that you want to spend a lot of effort to make some kind of performative 'I don't trust the authorities' virtue signaling, while avoiding a safe, effective, convenient, and FREE public health measure whilst being happy to freeload off both the herd immunity created by the smarter people and freeload off of the full healthcare system that will still treat you when your method fails - and at vastly greater expense than a couple of $20 shots. If you're that interested in freeloading off of everyone else, why won't you be freeloading off of this company too?

toss1 5y ago

perhaps, which vax program, which set? In any case, it's irrelevant - the article is arguing that previously infected ppl should not have to get the vax, and I've seen nothing indicating anything other than infection+vax is equal or greater than either option, and the infection immunity is highly variable in both strength and duration/decay. This matches the obviously wildly uncontrolled and highly variable factors in infection, including initial exposure load, viral strain, infected viral load, infection response & duration, etc. , vs a controlled standard dose of a highly tested vaccine. Frankly, as an employer, if anyone brought this to me trying to 'educate' me as to policy, they'd be doing themselves a disservice. The last thing any employer is going to want to do is setup some kind of parallel program to exempt previously infected people, checking another set of tests (how do we know you've been infected, was it with a strain that gives immunity to the current wild types?, how does that affect current immune response 8 months on?, etc.etc.etc.,). are you volunteering to run this program in YOUR spare time, and put yourself at personal legal risk? I thought not. Moreover it mostly shows that you want to spend a lot of effort to make some kind of performative 'I don't trust the authorities' virtue signaling, while avoiding a safe, effective, convenient, and FREE public health measure whilst being happy to freeload off both the herd immunity created by the smarter people and freeload off of the full healthcare system that will still treat you when your method fails - and at vastly greater expense than a couple of $20 shots. If you're that interested in freeloading off of everyone else, why won't you be freeloading off of this company too?