zlacker

> That isn't it at all, the question isn't "does natural immunity happen", but "what's the overall population cost of natural immunity".

Do you think we all have the memory of goldfish? In the height of the pandemic people were saying natural immunity was insufficient to prevent further infection to the degree that would matter the few who were talking about the "cost of natural immunity" (or any other sort of level headed adult discussion about tradeoffs) were ridiculed as enabling the anti-vaxers.

>Perhaps you're ok with the risks for you, but faulting a health officer for taking a different more conservative position is hardly a reasonable opinion.

This is a two way street. If you get to be conservative about natural immunity the other guys get to be conservative about the vax.

>>throwa+(OP)
There has been an alarming pattern of public health communication throughout the pandemic: public official (Fauci, WHO official, CDC Director, President, Governor, etc.) makes assertion A about COVID, questioning of assertion A is harshly criticized as anti-science, racist, right wing, wanting to kill grandma . . . Six to twelve months later, the same public health establishment admits not only was assertion A not true, but it was never believed by said establishment.

Most blatant examples:

- Masks are not protective

- The vaccine prevents infection (entire basis for mandates)

- There is no evidence for lab leak

- Natural immunity is not as effective as vaccine immunity

- the virus is not spread via aerosols