3 ms·
Insisting people who already have had the virus (and thus have better immunity than that given by the vaccine) should be second class citizens until they comply
by EricE 5y ago
Insisting people who already have had the virus (and thus have better immunity than that given by the vaccine) should be second class citizens until they comply and get the vaccine, despite not needing it, proves more than anything else that many of the pro-vaccine arguments are NOT being made in good faith.
"Follow the Science!" indeed :p
- mbg721 5y agoI believe there were countries that did acknowledge previous infection as contributing to immunity; this is just America doing what America does best--large portion sizes.
- fergonco 5y agoIn Spain public health system don't do PCRs anymore (only private, which very few would). Without a PCR you don't have a valid proof of being infected. This is my personal case and the case of many many Spanish people, as Omicron is sweeping the country.
- sudosysgen 5y agoIt is the same in Quebec. It's not because they don't want to recognize infections, it's just that they don't have the capacity to do so, which is perfectly understandable, while not recognizing infection as a vaccine does isn't.
- christkv 5y agoIn Asturias they will accept a positive antigen test as you can go to a pharmacy and they’ll do it and report you as positive to the health system.
- jhasse 5y ago> and thus have better immunity than that given by the vaccine source?
- landemva 5y agoOne source from CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm
- swsieber 5y agoGlancing over it, it seems pretty hard to draw any useful conclusions from it. I would expect that those most at risk from covid are the most likely to get vaccinated for it. I would expect the effect to get smaller once you start controlling for age (which they did not). Granted, I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. But I wouldn't state it as being supported by that paper.
- landemva 5y agoDid you see this part? Seems to be a conclusion. 'persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.'
- swsieber 5y agoI did. And it in no way disagrees with my above comment. _Persons_ who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone. This _does not mean_ that prior infection confers better protection. The vaccine vs infection was not distributed randomly - inherent risk is a confounding factor. So an equally likely explanation for the conclusion (as opposed to your interpretation of causation) is that the people who are naturally better at fighting off covid (e.g. younger, fewer high-risk factors), are less likely to get the vaccine.