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?