3 ms·
The person you are replying to is talking about hospitalizations for severe ilness. The study you are quoting is talking about covid infections in general. Thes
by lwkl 5y ago
The person you are replying to is talking about hospitalizations for severe ilness. The study you are quoting is talking about covid infections in general. These two are not the same and the vaccine protects from the former (severe illness and death).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wutbrodo 5y agoNo, he's also talking about severe illness and death. He's saying that prior infection is a good substitute for the vaccine in preventing severe illness and death. The corollary being that we should consider "vaxed or prior infection" and "immunologically naive" as the two relevant groups (for mandates etc), not "vaxed" and "unvaxed".
- mneubrand 5y agoPrior infection is a good substitute for the vaccine because the ones that die from that "prior infection" aren't going to be in the statistic that shows how effective a prior infection is compared to a vaccine for a subsequent covid infections
- wutbrodo 5y agoYou're responding to the wrong comment. I'm clarifying what the other commenter said, not championing his point. That being said, your comment still doesn't make any sense. The people who would be substituting prior infection for a vaxpass would not be the dead ones, because dead people are not known for going to comedy shows, bars, or restaurants. Ie, the claim is that "conditioned on being infected [and alive], a vaccine is superfluous". The [and alive] that you clarified is about as helpful as "and non-fictional"