> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue

My post was about the logistical and cost problems associated with certifying people with natural immunity, and why that doesn't make sense unless you believe the vaccine is unsafe.

I'm arguing against this particular point not the others.

I can't say whether the vaccine is safe for those who have already been infected the drug companies excluded those people from trials. Do you see what I'm saying here? When have we ever taken the position of prove its dangerous before you try to stop me from putting this in your body. Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe".

Except we now have data from the population itself, including people previously infected with COVID-19. We therefore do know it is safe. I think what you're saying is that you want to ignore inconvenient data and use outdated arguments.

> Its always been "no you prove to me that it is safe".

You could have made that argument at one point, but you cannot now. We have enough population level data to call it safe beyond the studies that also showed that it was safe. It is baseless.