I was trying to be conservative. I don't have any hard opinion on this one way or another. It seems like a degree of precision we'd be lucky to achieve in the best of times--i.e. when the virus and demographics aren't constantly evolving. And it's a degree of precision that is unnecessary to establish in this particular debate, even if we could. It feels like bike shedding.

The question isn't which is better--infection or vaccination. The question is, do we demand that the infected be vaccinated even though the substantial and consistent weight of scientific evidence gives us little reason to believe the previously infected put the population at more risk than the vaccinated, especially relative to vaccines that we affirmatively accept as sufficiently efficacious? The only scientifically justified answer is an unqualified, "No".

There are innumerable other questions people can debate, but from a pandemic policy perspective there's no need to venture there. And, frankly, it seems imprudent considering the level of uncertainty surrounding everything--not just the quality and relevance of data, but even if you're technically correct one moment, things can go sideways the next moment, necessitating a change in policy.