Wait. Your fearmongering about adverse reactions to the vaccine, but you acknowledge that you had an adverse reaction to COVID and indeed, the # of people with serious COVID complications dwarfs those with vaccine complications by orders of magnitude.

Also, this study doesn't seem to segment what the strain the 'natural infection'. The current vaccines are not engineered from the delta strain, but the alpha strains, and therefore it is not surprising you get breakthrough infections. But they don't seem to distinguish in this study between a natural alpha or a natural delta infection.

And there is an argument for getting it at this time:

1) If you get a booster, the chances of re-infection/breakthrough go down. In other words, you will not be an infectious disease vector that spreads to other people and increases the R0 value.

2) If you don't, and get re-infected, you will go on to infect other people. Maybe the symptoms won't be bad for you, but they may be deadly to someone else.

Whenever these debates about vaccines or masks come up, people always talk about my body and my freedom, but they never seem to consider the fact that their decisions are actually impacting the wider community. This isn't like a libertarian property rights decision about your own fenced in property, when you are infected by COVID, you are invading other people's bodies from your territory, and it behooves you to try and stop spreading to other people.

It’s confusing - alpha is not the original strain. It’s the original variant.

The vaccines are based on the original strain, not the alpha variant.

Everyone's decisions affect everyone.

Anyone who used a plane. Went to work. Went out to eat. Left their home. All put society are risk. Have you left your home in the last year? If so you have put others at risk.

Not all risks are the same, either in probability, or expected value, or avoidability or cost to mitigate. You're just trying to hand wave away the argument.

The cost-benefit of a mask compared with the cost-benefit of never leaving your home. You sure these two scenarios are equal?

Masks are a bad joke. Respirators are the only thing that work with aerosol size particles and covid is well below the size that aerosols are classed at. See Edwards et al 2/23/2021 (figure 4.) for a start. Go and read the package insert on an N95 mask (the weakest kind of respirator), it warns they are not suitable for asbestos particles which are many times larger than the covid virus. Masks leak because they are impossible to seal, they don't do anything beneficial. The infection rates in schools in Florida where some were under mask mandates and others were not were identical and tracked the general community rates.

Congratulations on being another vector for misinformation.

It has never been the case that anyone suggested that N95 masks could stop the passage of naked SARS-COV-2 particles.

However, when ejected from the respiratory passages during breathing, coughing, sneezing, the viral particles are not naked, but bound into much larger particles comprised mostly of bodily fluids. N95 masks do a stellar job of preventing the passage of such particles. Yes, edge sealing is an issue, but it is completely incorrect to claim that as a result "they don't do anything beneficial". Citing a single statistic from schools in Florida is not a legitimate way of overturning worldwide, vast-N studies that support the efficacy of mask wearing.

In general, would you rather a person open sneezed at you with or without a mask?

In my entire life, no one has directly sneezed on me except for my own kids when they were little. I'd rather they cover with their elbow than us all wear a mask.

If they are covid infectious, I've already inhaled their particles before they sneezed if we were both wearing surgical masks. See that study I referenced.

You should watch some of those clever (thermal?) imaging videos of what happens when people sneeze when using various kinds of coverings (or none at all).

The aerosol spray from even an elbow-covered sneezed is something to behold.

The favourite trick of misinformation purveyors is stripping away context.

Then they can hide behind equivocation.

Risk is risk! Even manifest risk is risk!

I do wonder what is disagreeable about what was said here. This is the reasoning for vaccines around the world.

the best efficacy numbers come from a combination of viral exposure and vaccination, the greatest risk comes from infection with the virus.

there is a feature of the spike protien that is partially stealthy; it is conformational change.

the vaccine generates modified spike protien that is locked into conformation so that immune response is biased toward a spike protien with RBD extended to infect a cell.

natural infection will generate such response however to a lower degree, further however opsinizing responses are generated, thus provoking memory immunity.

the vaccine is biased toward producing antibodies that bind to the receptor binding domain of the spike, thus producing binding inhibition of RBD ACE2 recognition thus prophylaxis.

there is a hypothetical sweet spot where vaccine induced antibody titre is at peak and will inhibit viral entry and spike RBD dynamics, meaning reduced chance of unmanaged infection and reduced severity of illness due to perturbation of the RAS system via ACE2 interference

Nobody on this site but yourself truly cares what you, personally, do. This entire subthread is about what people in general do.

And it's not particularly surprising that people here find that vaccine reticence is absurd, whether you've caught the thing or not.

I likely caught COVID early on (unproven), and I was part of a clinical trial for a vaccine, where I got two real shots of CureVac. The clinical trial didn't pass and I had to get two more shots of Moderna so I could count as vaccinated for things like events and travels.

Overkill? Yes. Unnecessary? Almost definitely. Annoying to do? Well I did get fever from two of the four shots so yes.

Still did it, and would do it again if I have to, because there is zero fucking risk compared to anything we do in the day to day life such as crossing the street.

I'm on a bicycle for several hours a week roaming the streets of Brussels. I will statistically die from that.

You are not wrong about the efficacy of naturally acquired immunity. It's not a hard call at all. There is a clear order of magnitude plus difference. The math is super simple.

It can be maddening, and make you feel like you live in crazy town, to not see people acknowledge this, and to have leaders at the CDC spout pure lies about it over and over again.

Here's how I made peace with it.

Pfizer will sell $33B worth of vaccines this year. The annual budgets of every news organization in America sum to $10B. So Pfizer's COVID revenue alone could pay for every newsroom all across America, and they'd still have $23B left over. And then there's Moderna, J&J, CVS, and so on.

There are an enormous amount of people working full time and part-time to promote and sell as many vaccines as possible. The biggest competitor to the vax is naturally acquired immunity. So that in particular is a big target of the shills and censors.

People always respond to incentives. This is not specific to the vax industry, and is all around us. I guess the surprising thing is how there may be no exceptions to that rule.

Looking at the data, I see no reason for anyone who's naturally recovered to get it, nor anyone under 20. If you haven't had COVID and are over 30, I think it's a good bet.

Personally I want as many people to have as much immunity to covid as possible, in order to limit (and ideally eradicate) the spread of covid. So the stronger your immunity gets, the more likely it is you will harbor less virus and therefore less likely to spread it to others.

Also, over the last year and a half, my mom went into chemo for like 6 months, had a minor heart attack (and was in the ICU twice for almost two weeks), and went into the ER recently—the majority of those times the hospital wouldn't even let me or my dad into the hospital to visit because covid cases were so high.

For me, the goal is societal (global) reduction or eradication of the virus and for that so that we don't have to argue about masks or vaccines or watch friends and family die or get wickedly sick.

Since there are multiple animal reservoirs your eradication goal is impossible. The most likely scenario is that we'll all be infected eventually no matter what we do. Fortunately the vaccines are very effective at preventing death.

Fair point on the reservoirs. Then I'd hope that thru vaccines, we train our immune system to get better and better at responding to the virus without having to take on the full viral load. I read an article a few months back describing how the immune system is like an info gathering machine, trying to catalog different threats that exist, and I dunno, I guess I just prefer to practice how to swim in a controlled pool than being tossed into the ocean.

Then why shouldn't people with natural immunity (whether vaccinated or not) demand the vaccinated be intentionally exposed to COVID? (And quarantine after exposure.)

Presuming risk of severity of breakthrough cases is as low as we've been told (over and over), isn't demanding intentional exposure a justifiable risk, if it improves a vaccinated individual's immunity to the levels of natural immunity?

Does it make a difference if risk of breakthrough infection severity ends up being lower than risk of vaccine side-effect severity?

well I'd assume that one can also get more immunity thru more vaccine shots and it's a much less risky strategy (aka no virus that can self-replicate) than intentionally exposing oneself to the virus.

Not by the logic that's been applied up to now. "Better immunity is worth the personal risk of vaccination" is the mantra that's been repeated over and over to those who already had covid.

All of a sudden risk-benefit analysis is debatable? Why is breakthrough infection not a risk worth taking, but vaccine side effects are?

Especially vaccine risk vs the limited marginal benefit for those with natural immunity?

If the breakthrough infection risk is lower to oneself and to others than the vaccine risk is to oneself and to others, then I think it would make sense to encourage people to expose themselves to the virus as a way to increase immunity.

I currently believe that the vaccine is much lower short-term risk to oneself (and especially to others) than getting a breakthrough infection. I also believe that the vaccines probably have lower medium- and long-term risks as well.

So yes, for me, if the risk equation changes, I'd be open to changing course. Until then, vaccines seem to be much lower in risk to oneself and to others than the virus itself.

Would you agree?

I agree the logic is internally consistent.

I also think it's absolutely absurd and that people will justify anything. Especially if they're already committed to it, and don't want to find out they're previous actions were nothing but show.

Including "you should intentionally get sick to prevent you from possibly unintentionally getting sick."

Which actions do you think were for show?

it is not impossible to make informed intelligent decisions regarding your behavior, or the situations you choose to become involved in. there are behavioral alternatives that will minimise your risk and others risk, these alternatives are not for everyone, the psychological challenge of social isolation is not bourne well by many people, however it was the best we had until vaccine production was sufficient to provide population scale administration.

please believe me, this is not fear mongering when i say that the >potential< risk posed if this virus generates omega strain variation [hypothetical doomsday strain] would be large and unmanagable.

this can happen if, long road taken variations accumulate over time as a result of unchecked transmission and incubation.

the short road is co-circulation of variants recombining genetic elements as a result of concurrent multivariant infection.

...and apology accepted, i see you are very passionate about your decision

That's just unscientific fear mongering nonsense. Humans are social creatures. For most people social isolation is more harmful than the virus. The human race has already survived previous coronavirus pandemics and they didn't cause doomsday.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7252012/

you are wrong this is not fear mongering, this is a high potential of increased danger with each successive modification, please explain what bottleneck eliminated the majority of hominoid species but left us here.

Our ancestors eliminated the majority of hominid species, leaving us here. There is no scientific evidence that any early hominid species was wiped out by a viral pandemic.

there is plenty of genetic evidence linking neanderthal genetic features to outcome of disease and genetic infirmity, as well as outcome of covid infection, primarily to do with interferon production and signaling, as well as receptor domains, these are heteroallelic as well, so strong neanderthal heritage with respect to population at large may provide a protective allele, or a predispositional allele.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/neanderthal-gene-fou...

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.11.422139v1

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201215/Neanderthal-gene-...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2025501

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/9/e2026309118

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.11.422139v1

You should risk it because the risk really is minimal and the greater benefit for society is enormous. I don't think people have cognitive bias. There are plenty of arguments in favor of getting it.

Dude! The risk may be small, but it is not zero.

For someone who already has natural immunity, that matters.

If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000 - and I believe they are higher the younger you are - then that's significantly better odds than playing the lottery to end up hurt.

And for what?

"The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity.

If there's any point that you have to argue against this, I'd hope you make it instead of throwing out assertions.

> "The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity.

No, it's not. The very linked article and many others agree that people exposed to both scenarios have more effective, longer lasting immunity than the ones affected by either scenario individually.

And the adverse effect risk of a vaccine is not a lottery. At this point with billions of people vaccinated around the world, the risk profiles are pretty accurate, the side effects very well known and unless you are a kid under 18, all vaccines being widely distributed in western countries - which are the ones I cared to do any research on - are effectively zero risk.

>At this point with billions of people vaccinated around the world, the risk profiles are pretty accurate

No. With out no strictly mandated reporting of AEFIs, billions of administrated doses cannot indicate a safety profile..

Even with around 1% events reported, the serious events are around 1 in 5000

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28311640

>If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000

They are not. They are like 1 in 5000 (still based on volutary reporting)

https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...

Ask these exact questions to the person who originally hesitated to vaccinate and got COVID.

The risk of hospitalisation/death wasn’t zero. And yet… they chose COVID through inaction.

And for what?

“I am not an anti-vaxxer but was holding out” spells “I am an anti-vaxxer but I lucked out”.

_Nobody_ chose COVID.

And, in the early days, there was no vaccine.

In the middle days, the vaccines that were made were used.

Now, those who shun a free vaccine - and haven't already caught COVID - are choosing not to lower their risk of contracting COVID in that one way... But that doesn't really help your argument.

Guess you don’t understand default choice, huh?

Choosing not to choose commits you to the status quo: risk of COVID hospitalisation/death.

Then by that logic, you should risk a breakthrough infection to achieve natural immunity levels.

Because breakthrough severity risk is "minimal" and the greater benefit for society is enormous.

There are plenty of arguments for increasing your immunity by catching it.