Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?

Post by tomjakubowski » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:29 PM UTC

defaulty wrote: post #40

kemayo wrote: post #16

I'd assume that a lot of it is the existing polarization over the issue. It's easier to lie and say you already had COVID, and there's a bunch of people who'd probably do so. (Plus a lot of people who don't even know they've already had COVID, because of asymptomatic cases.) The state of medical records in the USA is... not great, so it's easier to show evidence of the vaccination that can at least theoretically be v…

> because it's easier to lie and say you already had COVID, and there's a bunch of people who'd probably do so. It's not actually. They're equivalent. The vaccine proof is PAPER which can be forged. And while evidence of a COVID19 test can be paper too, mine was digital.

Post by ghiculescu » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:33 PM UTC

kristjansson wrote: post #525

Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More? Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way. Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces…

Post by hodgesrm » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

jowday wrote: post #343

throwawayfear wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Past covid gives antibodies that are superior to two shots of Pfizer. https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on... So yes, it IS just as good as the vaccination and should be treated as such. Vaccinating people for the sake of vaccinating them is illogical here. And don't even get me started on vaccine passports, which are completely unnecessary. If a place of employment absolutely needs proof of v…

I'd agree with you that vaccine passports definitely represent a sacrifice of individual liberty for safety - but what makes you say that that they're "completely unnecessary"? If we accept that a vaccinated person has a lowered, but not eliminated, chance of contracting and transmitting COVID, wouldn't it make sense to avoid contact with people that are at a much higher risk of infection? If you feel that the tradeo…

Post by soperj » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

ghiculescu wrote: post #533

kristjansson wrote: post #525

Because it's a terrible policy prescription. If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More? Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way. Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces…

If hospitals didn’t overflow and society didn’t crumble for most of 2020 (when there was 0% vaccination), it’s odd to argue that it will now that there is 65% vaccination.

Post by dgfitz » Tue, Sep 14, 2021, 11:37 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #493

isolli wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While not wrong in itself, your comment epitomizes everything that has been wrong with our public health response. Trying to manipulate populations into a desired behavior by lying to them is, as you point out, counterproductive in the long run.

OP's statement recognizes that incentives matter. If you remove the incentive to do the right thing, people will simply not do the right thing--If 2020 has taught us anything it has to be that! You can't just rely on everyone being a rational actor and let Nash Equilibrium keep society functioning. It becomes a gigantic Prisoners Dilemma with everyone choosing DEFECT. You complain that "not recognizing natural immuni…