I'm saying that the parent's comment about pushing for herd immunity through both means is not exactly true. We are moving towards herd immunity by both methods unintentionally, but the only method being pushed is vaccination. So much so, that antibodies derived from infection are not even being counted, but rather those persons are being told they need the vaccine anyways.

It's a bit like measuring outputs rather than outcomes.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Are you saying that we should be “pushing for herd immunity through both means” as in we should be pushing for vaccinations and pushing people to spread the disease as fast as possible?

I'm simply stating the claim that US is pushing for herd immunity through the choice of infection of vaccination is not true. That only vaccination is being pushed, and it is not exactly a free choice if you're going to lose your job or be denied service over it.

The vaccine results in more robust immunity.[1] That is an outcome.

[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825?query=TOC

What this shows is that a single dose administered to a previously infected person provides greater antibody production than a non infected person's recieving two doses. The study also says that they are unsure if those higher levels affect a patient's ability to get sick or transmit the virus.

What I would be looking for is a study showing that prior infection has x% effectiveness as measured against a vaccine on a similar timeline.

I concur, thanks for helping folks stay informed.

GP's takeaway that "The vaccine results in more robust immunity" is completely unsupported by the provided source.

Pushing for near universal vaccination isn't at odds with wanting to maximize pharma profits. Quite the opposite.

Pharma makes more money on average from covid infections in the US than vaccinations.

Was it not the case that most of the vaccine producers were providing them at cost?

No. Not even close. https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/vaccine-monopolies-m...