So, I ask for a third time, clarify what exactly are you advocating as a consequence of your argument if it is not the following:
On the internet, there isn’t a whole lot of room in between disagreeing with someone on multiple key points, and their being an idiot.
However, I am impressed by the lack of rigor in those Rushworth quotes DMC found.
Is there any reason to think vaccinations are more effective than actually surviving covid?
That’s like asking if there is any reason to think a bulletproof vest is more effective than not getting shot.
It’s just a poorly written thread title, but OP is unenthusiastic about asking a mod to change it. When you work out what he means, OP is actually asking a reasonable question - if somebody who has already been infected should still get vaccinated.
Not at all. That’s a really useless simile, actually.
The problem is that people seem to want to add a morality question to everything covid. Whether or how infection or vaccine produced immunity are different is pretty straightforward and relevant question. But everyone seems to want to view it through the lens of righteous people vs deniers/maskholes.
I think their is a related question: is it ethical to accept a vaccination when you’ve had COVID? I know at one person who got vaccinated who had it a few months ago. I wouldn’t judge her for that, but in her place I think I would have declined.
I agree. The probably of reinfection is obvious far lower than for first infection. Unless you are a medical worker or some other very high risk group, if you have already been infected you should certainly be low priority for vaccination.
I’m not exactly advocating anything.
There are various ramifications of assuming either that vaccines add little-to-no protection for someone who has already been infected versus assuming that it adds significant addition protection. FWIW, I mentioned a couple in the OP. You yourself seem to acknowledge the concept (in post #67).
There’s no need to impute anything beyond that.
Then why are you so reluctant to discuss those “various ramifications”, why persist in denying what you are obviously implying?
For somebody who has been infected, we have two courses of action:
(1) Vaccinate. Protection & risk studied in large trials, but some residual uncertainty on long term risk.
(2) Do not vaccinate. Protection from prior infection will probably prevent reinfection, but some uncertainty.
So what could the “ramifications” be other than exactly what I said:
I’ve been discussing this in good faith and you seem to be playing some sort of gotcha game.
It’s unfortunate that vaccinations have become a hot button issue which is triggering to some people and makes rational discussion difficult.
At any rate, I’m done with this exchange with you. Have at it.
Here’s a health scientist from England who is, I guess, downplaying the risk of harm to kids:
Virus 'may need to circulate among young people’
Dr Mary Ramsay, head of immunisation at Public Health England, said that if the vaccine does not prevent COVID-19 transmission, the virus may need to be allowed to circulate among younger people.
Asked if it was likely the entire population would need to be vaccinated, she told the Science and Technology Committee: "We may need to accept, if the vaccine doesn’t prevent transmission, that we’re going to protect the people who are really vulnerable and going to die and have serious disease, but we allow the disease to circulate in younger people where it’s not causing much harm.
"That may be the situation we go to, like we are with things like flu, that we accept that a lot of people get flu but we protect those who are most vulnerable.
“That may be the outcome, I’m hoping it will be a bit better than that.”
Assuming Phipps is in good faith, besides what you accurately list in your quoted bit I can see a couple more ramifications.
Every dose of vaccine spent on an already-immune COVID survivor could be better spent on a not-yet immune person. Every non-wasted dose flattens the curve sooner and preserves multiple lives later.
Conversely, we’ll eventually get to a place where proof of immunity will be required for work or travel or … And if not in the USA, certainly in some countries both for residents and visitors. I can see the opportunities for somebody to generate fake “I’ve already had COVID” letters from fake doctors to be easier than fake “I’ve already been vaccinated” certificates.
Just been a report on BBC but it isn’t online yet.
The story is that those who have had Coronavirus have a known six month immunity - that is what is known at present, however the news item went on to say reinfection can occur and these people may become aymptomatic spreaders.
Make of that what you will, perhaps it would be better to treat recovery as just the first stage of the vaccination process and then go on to obtain the second dose - but that is wild assed guess.
Information is still coming in, it has to be evaluated and it all takes time - meanwhile we see new variants and we should expect more.
Here is the BBC link