Trump has political reasons for wanting to be seen having taken the vaccine. If his doctors felt it wasn't the best treatment but wasn't particularly harmful, would they deny him the vaccine? Right or wrong, doctors write scripts all the time that are a limited to no value because the patient wants it and if there is little to no harm from it.

> Trump has political reasons for wanting to be seen having taken the vaccine.

Except that he wasn't seen taking the vaccine. AFAIK, he's only once even mentioned it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-covid-19-vaccine-january-...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/01/politics/trump-melania-vaccin...

He didn't appear in a PSA with former presidents:

https://www.abc4.com/coronavirus/watch-former-u-s-presidents...

Everybody's got a different risk profile for Covid-19, and their own risk profile for vaccinations. You shouldn't expect that an answer balancing those for one person is at all applicable to a different person.

The fact that a confirmed natural infection confers immunity equal to or greater than the vaccines is well established at this point. There are something like 80 documented reinfections worldwide. For previously infected people with autoimmune issues there is miniscule upside and some potentially significant downside to getting the shots.

Donald Trump is about the last person on earth I would point to as someone whose actions and motivations should be viewed as straightforward. He's been pumping the vaccines and trying to take credit for them ever since they were approved, and his making a big show of getting the vaccine can easily be viewed in that light.

>The fact that a confirmed natural infection confers immunity equal to or greater than the vaccines is well established at this point. There are something like 80 documented reinfections worldwide.

There is definitely a lot more than 80. My impression is that the mRNA vaccines are more effective than natural immunity.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

It doesn't make sense to compare a study where asymptomatic people were being mass tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA with the vaccine trials or the CDC's existing tracking of breakthrough infections, both of which require the presence of symptoms before running any tests. The CDC has even set a lower CT threshold (i.e. higher amount of viral RNA must be present) in order to consider a positive test to be an actual breakthrough infection.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/can-you-get-covid-tw...

> The fact that a confirmed natural infection confers immunity equal to or greater than the vaccines is well established at this point.

I don't think this is true:

https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-get-a-covid-19-va...

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-reinfection...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27102006

> For previously infected people with autoimmune issues there is miniscule upside and some potentially significant downside to getting the shots.

I wasn't addressing that portion of AuryGlenz's comment. Obviously if you have an underlying condition, you should take that into account. The C.D.C. addresses autoimmune conditions here:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommend...

> Donald Trump is about the last person on earth I would point to as someone whose actions and motivations should be viewed as straightforward. He's been pumping the vaccines and trying to take credit for them ever since they were approved, and his making a big show of getting the vaccine can easily be viewed in that light.

He didn't make a big show of it. He made no show of it at all. I'm not appealing to his judgement. I'm appealing to the judgement of his doctors.

None of those links really support that the vaccine is better than a “natural” immunity. It sounds about as effective as the Pfizer vaccine, and that’s when you count the whole population of people that tested positive for COVID. A good portion of those were probably mild or even asymptotic. I had a raging infection where I could barely get up out of a chair for a few days, high fever, etc.

Also, I’m far from an expert but wouldn’t the vaccines only produce antibodies for the spike protein as opposed to an actual infection producing antibodies for the spike protein and the virus itself?

The claim was "confirmed natural infection confers immunity equal to or greater than the vaccines is well established."

I don't think that's true, certainly not to the point of “well established.”

Here's another source:

Which produces a stronger immune response: a natural infection or a vaccine?

The short answer: We don’t know. But Covid-19 vaccines have predictably prevented illness, and they are a far safer bet, experts said.

Vaccines for some pathogens, like pneumococcal bacteria, induce better immunity than the natural infection does. Early evidence suggests that the Covid-19 vaccines may fall into this category. Volunteers who received the Moderna shot had more antibodies — one marker of immune response — in their blood than did people who had been sick with Covid-19.

In other cases, however, a natural infection is more powerful than a vaccine. For example, having mumps — which can, in rare cases, cause fertility problems in men — generates lifelong immunity, but some people who have received one or two doses of the vaccine still get the disease.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-natural-immu...

I am also not an expert, so my first link is to someone who is (an immunologist). She cites various sources for why she recommends still being vaccinated. Of course, while she is A doctor, she isn't your doctor.

What I think is that a lot of people posting here are certain they are right, while what most doctors seem to be saying is: "we're not certain, but vaccination is low risk and provides reliable immunity."

Now, those doctors aren't your doctors. They're making a general recommendation. Your doctor, knowing your specific health history, will likely be able to make a more informed recommendation.

Ultimately this is a cost/benefit analysis. There seems to be less benefit to being vaccinated for people who have previously been infected vs those who haven't. You need to weigh that smaller benefit against the risk of vaccination. If the risk of harm from vaccination is smaller than the risk of re-infection, isn't it still worth getting vaccinated?

Anyway, hacker news comments aren't medical advice and I am highly skeptical of folks posting here with such certainty about matters outside their expertise, especially about an emerging disease.