zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. abeppu+(OP)[view] [source] 2022-07-16 08:57:37
Why is protection against symptomatic infection not relevant? Because the bar for "severe" is set rather high, there's plenty of room for symptomatic illness to be personally, economically, and systematically damaging without being "severe", and I think a lot of people find that waning protection to be quite relevant.

> You are going to get Covid multiple times in your life, regardless of your vaccination or infection status.

Yeah but whether you expect to get it once every couple years or multiple times a year is meaningful to what living in a post-covid world looks like.

Earlier your very firm statement did not qualify the unchanged protective effect as being limited to severe, critical or fatal disease, and I think you're moving goalposts.

> The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing.

replies(1): >>timr+901
2. timr+901[view] [source] 2022-07-16 17:37:26
>>abeppu+(OP)
If you're going to quote me, quote me -- don't paraphrase me and leave out essential context. Here is what I wrote:

> The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing. There have been dozens of papers now, all saying the same thing: natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines.

I was saying that natural infection is equivalent to vaccination -- if not better. Then, in the same comment, I explicitly said that none of this will prevent re-infection:

> Norway is saying what it is, because we know that most people -- vaccinated or previously infected -- will eventually get re-infected. But even if you are re-infected, you will be well-protected against severe illness.

Did people originally overstate the claim that vaccination would prevent infection? Absolutely. Do we now know this to be untrue? Again, absolutely. You're going to be re-infected multiple times in your life. Cannot be helped.

But it's still true that infection and vaccination offer at least equivalent levels of protection. So if you're concerned about the protection of "natural immunity" -- by whatever standard -- then I have bad news for you: the vaccines are no better.

[go to top]