Is there any reason to think vaccinations are more effective than actually surviving covid?

[Riemann]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The relevance of the claim is that it weakens one particular argument in favor of vaccinating such people.

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:

@Riemann

you are advocating taking the unknown risk of reinfection because you claim (without evidence) that the risk of unknown potential harm from vaccination is greater.

[PhillyGuy]

@SayTwo

So he cites The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and official government statistics for the lowest death rate per 100K of any month in their history, and he’s an idiot?

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.

[MrKnowItAll]

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.

[Riemann]

@MrKnowItAll

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.

[FigNorton]

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.

[MandaJo]

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.

[Riemann]

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.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Riemann

what exactly are you advocating as a consequence of your argument if it is not the following

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.

[Riemann]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

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.

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:

@Riemann

For somebody who has been infected in the past, you are advocating taking the unknown risk of reinfection because you claim (without evidence) that the risk of unknown potential harm from vaccination is greater.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Riemann

Then why are you so reluctant to discuss those “various ramifications”, why persist in denying what you are obviously implying?

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.

[SayTwo]

@Broomstick

I don’t have the exact numbers handy and you could probably find them yourself on the internet just as quickly as I could. But a quick google later:

As of last week there had been a total of 21 life-threatening reactions to the vaccine with no fatalities. That’s a 0.001% of such a reaction.

As of the end of last year it looks like more than 2 million kids in the US have had covid. 1.3% of those had it bad enough to be hospitalized and 0.01% have died.

So… rough guess at present is that actually catching covid is an order of magnitude more dangerous for kids than getting the vaccine.

Keep in mind, too, that the vaccine so far has not shown any long-lasting or permanent damage to the body, but we definitely have a number of kids who survived covid but have permanent damage like impaired lung function, heart or other organ damage or so forth.

So yeah, vaccine is a LOT safer for the kids (baring some medical reason not to get a vaccine, like extreme allergic reactions).

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.”

COVID live news - latest UK updates: Second wave deaths now higher than first...

[LSLGuy]

@Riemann

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:

@Riemann

For somebody who has been infected in the past, you are advocating taking the unknown risk of reinfection because you claim (without evidence) that the risk of unknown potential harm from vaccination is greater.

Assuming Phipps is in good faith, besides what you accurately list in your quoted bit I can see a couple more ramifications.

1. 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.

2. 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.

[casdave]

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.

[casdave]

Here is the BBC link

Past Covid-19 infection may provide 'months of immunity'