No, it’s not a very legitimate approach to suggest for most folks. Sure, you have a right to do that yourself, as long as you don’t infect anyone else. But the negative long-term side effects are risky enough that it wouldn’t be good to suggest that most people try it. Additionally, the reason it was not suggested by the “talking heads” was to avoid people infecting their elderly relatives, who are much more likely to die.

You’d have to have pretty definitive evidence to suggest that getting COVID is equivalent to getting the vaccine in terms of positives. The cons of getting COVID itself are way worse for most people than just getting the vaccine.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects....

> The cons of getting COVID itself are way worse for most people than just getting the vaccine.

How can it be worse for most people if most people don't even notice it and that being one of the reasons why the virus spreads quickly? People mention infection's side-effects, yet no one was screening those with side-effects prior their infection to definitively establish causation.

Most people do notice it. The real problem is that most people don't notice it until after they've been spreading it for a couple of days.

Hard to say. There are tons of studies on the subject and they all have different findings. The number of asymptomatic covid positive people who got tested was found to be between 5% and 90% (not talking about pre-symptomatic, aka people who developed symptoms in the next weeks).

There seems to be a correlation with age, the younger you are, the less likely you have symptoms.

Considering that asymptomatic people are less likely to be tested than people with symptoms, this is a lower bound.

I'm inclined to believe the majority of cases are asymptomatic and that therefore that most people don't notice it.

Definitely a lower bound. In reality cases have probably been several multiples higher (and mortality rate several multiples lower).

Not most people, but Death isn’t worse?

Fair point, but it must be added that it can be valid only as long as one understands and accepts the risks and possible consequences (including the social factors), and doesn't spread it further to anyone without their full awareness and explicit consent.

> and doesn't spread it further to anyone without their full awareness and explicit consent.

Agreed, but which is impossible to actually control.

If you just get it through exposure at an unknown time, then you are potentially exposing vulnerable people during the contagious part of the pre-symptomatic period.

If you are talking about controlled deliberate exposure and managed isolation afterwards (and I guess refusal of medical care if this was prior to their protection from the vaccine) I guess that is different, except that it would also have the externality of contributing towards generating new variants and potentially breaking vaccines for everyone else if you slipped up in your isolation.