>There is NO reason to not be vaccinated at this point if you can be.

If you've already had COVID, especially recently, that's a pretty damn good reason to not get vaccinated given that your immunity is likely far stronger and more durable than a vaccinated-but-COVID-naïve person. [1]

While getting vaccinated on top might help (there is not definitive data on this yet AFAIK [2]), it is also not 100% risk-free. So why would you do that if you're already more immune and thus less of a risk / less at-risk than the vaccinated population?

For some people it might make sense to still get vaccinated after COVID recovery. But for those who choose not to, it's not at all fair to say they are all "idiots" or that there is "no reason" not to still get the shot. That's not accurate based on what the actual science tells us at this time.

[1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected.

[2]: https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/why-covid-19-vacci...

None of these studies suggest that getting a vaccine increases your risk. It can only decrease it.

Is your claim that the vaccines don't themselves have any risks or side effects associated with them? "The vaccine, on average, will reduce your risk" is one claim that is correct for most people, but "the vaccine can only reduce your risk" is a much stronger claim that is not universally true (if you don't agree, consider whether one should get a daily dose of the vaccine).

My claim is exactly what it is. You don't have to modify it.

None of these studies suggest that getting a vaccine increases your risk. It can only decrease it.

> not sure what else you would call someone with such a skewed risk assessment

You could start with “a person with a skewed risk assessment.” I’ve found avoiding pejorative is a more effective persuasion technique. Maybe the people around you really respond to name calling?

> a vaccine that has proven to be incredibly safe and effective

I understand that there have been very few deaths or serious injuries from the vaccines. At the same time, I am aware of the unexplained menstrual side effects. I completely understand why women who plan to have children, and parents of girls, don't view the vaccine as zero risk.

Citation?

> But thousands of people in the U.S. think they may have had other side effects that drugmakers and doctors never warned them about: unexpected changes in their menstrual cycles. [1]

1: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/08/09/1024190...

Alright so I'd like you to draw me a picture of your reasoning behind the statement that we do not know how long immunity from infection lasts but we have a better idea with the vaccines. Because in the world I live in, we have had infections longer than vaccines, which means more data on immunity from infections than vaccines. Where did you get that statement from and why did you say it?

What if there's long term effects from vaccination? Seems to me we won't know the full risk profile for several more years.

I'm not at risk for COVID so it doesn't make sense to take on additional unknown risk in this case.

I also believe people should be able to make their own decisions, and believe I'm doing my part in exercising that right and sticking it to the man (which is more like a hive mind today really).

"Safe and effective" yet we don't even have a full year of data on it. How are people this clueless?

Are you talking about 1 year of data post infection or post vaccination?

>that has proven to be incredibly safe and effective,

There are no long term studies so calling it incredibly safe is misleading at best. What happens if some issues start cropping up in 5 or 10 years.

>Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19.

So it could be longer than vaccines? Some places are already pushing for boosters since vaccine efficacy is waning. It seems like we should look into this.

>There are no long term studies so calling it incredibly safe is misleading at best. What happens if some issues start cropping up in 5 or 10 years.

Do you think this is a thing we do in general before starting to produce and distribute vaccines? If you are under that impression, I must inform you, it is not the case. We do not spend a decade watching for vaccine side effects before we begin vaccinating people, even when the situation is "normal" and not the same as COVID.

I don't really care if people want to take a vaccine without knowing the long term effects. I have an issue with trying to force others to take it. If you believe it is safe then take it. If somebody doesn't then they shouldn't be required to. If you are going to force people to take a vaccine they should have all the information.