4 ms·

> Is there a scientific reason, as opposed to political, why this would not exempt one from a mandated vaccine? First of all, taking the vaccine is not politic

by nuerow 5y ago

> Is there a scientific reason, as opposed to political, why this would not exempt one from a mandated vaccine? First of all, taking the vaccine is not political. What is political is the contrarian stance against vaccinating against COVID-19. This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths. Secondly, natural immunity against COVID-19 is not a sure thing, with the risk of reinfection being as high as 17%, and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first[1]. In contrast, immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer[2]. Consequently, there is absolutely no reason at all, other than political beliefs, to refuse to get the vaccine. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8 [2] https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-p...

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
Your comment is full of misinformation. > This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths. You seem to be implying that the former president, whose administration helped fund the vaccine development, was responsible for all of the anti-vaxxer sentiment. Even as someone who is very happy Trump is gone, I must say this type of dishonesty has no place in a civil discourse about vaccination. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-maddow/what-trump-said-encourage-covid-19-vaccine-use/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-mad... > ...and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first You have conveniently misconstrued what your own citation says: > Reinfections have been reported, and in a few instances, the second infection was more severe than the first, but serological responses suggest that patients never seroconverted after initial infection and ADE is a less likely cause of a more severe second infection Some people don't seroconvert after vaccination either. Using outliers to make broad claims is not appropriate. > ...immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer. Linking to an infographic that doesn't provide citations for its statements isn't exactly convincing, especially when there is evidence that what is claimed might not be accurate. For example see, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... Conclusion: > This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

by nuerow 5y ago

LurkingPenguin 5y ago

Your comment is full of misinformation. > This sad state of affairs was the direct result of an election campaign which was deeply invested in denying that COVID-19 was a public health concern, or even that it existed at all, and thus recognizing the vaccine's importance and effectiveness was deemed a sign of a political defeat and admission of responsibility for countless unnecessary deaths. You seem to be implying that the former president, whose administration helped fund the vaccine development, was responsible for all of the anti-vaxxer sentiment. Even as someone who is very happy Trump is gone, I must say this type of dishonesty has no place in a civil discourse about vaccination. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-maddow/what-trump-said-encourage-covid-19-vaccine-use/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-mad... > ...and subsequent infections are known to be more severe than the first You have conveniently misconstrued what your own citation says: > Reinfections have been reported, and in a few instances, the second infection was more severe than the first, but serological responses suggest that patients never seroconverted after initial infection and ADE is a less likely cause of a more severe second infection Some people don't seroconvert after vaccination either. Using outliers to make broad claims is not appropriate. > ...immunity through vaccination is believed to be not only more effective but also last longer. Linking to an infographic that doesn't provide citations for its statements isn't exactly convincing, especially when there is evidence that what is claimed might not be accurate. For example see, https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... Conclusion: > This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.