3 ms·
It's a bit conspiratorial to suggest health authorities including epidemiologists and immunologists would 'ignore' a foundational aspect of their underlying kno
by jollybean 5y ago
It's a bit conspiratorial to suggest health authorities including epidemiologists and immunologists would 'ignore' a foundational aspect of their underlying knowledge of the system when trying to understand it and formulate policy.
Of course they are taking it into account.
Most health authorities do random sampling to try to get an idea of underlying natural immunity and the various characteristics that takes on.
- bigodbiel 5y agoIf you go by the CDC’s hesitancy in accepting natural immunity, including the number of dubious conducted and/or worded studies they pushed, while ignoring studies showing the opposite and what foreign governments were doing (eg 3G), one is forgiven for believing that.
- jollybean 5y agoI didn't say that they were right or wrong to reject natural immunity, I said they are not ignoring natural immunity in terms of their calculus. FYI The reason we're not going to accept 'natural immunity' as a legit form of documented immunity is because millions of idiots will go and get COVID on purpose , as they'd prefer getting it 'the natural way' as opposed to getting a jab. This is the difference between 'Science' and 'Public Health Policy'. I just had an anti-vaxx colleague do exactly that, and it wasn't even for some kind of immune benefit, rather, 'just to get it over with'. I was completely floored when she told me. But I'm now convinced that my anti-vaxx cousins who are now barred from the liquor stores, would get COVID 'on purpose' if they could get their passport to alcohol and not have to get the 'Goddam Fauci Jab'.