As we are literally seeing in many states, obtaining natural immunity en-mass means that ICUs fill, doctors and nurses burn out, and morgues have waiting lists.
That "natural immunity provides decent protection" is itself a lie. Decent protection for whom exactly? It doesn't protect your community to act as a vector for this virus while you are obtaining said immunity. It doesn't even protect you from the risk of long-lasting post-infection disability. It is deliberately malicious and puts its believers at an objectively higher risk.
Are you really sure you want to go down that road? Are you really saying you're fine with someone telling you falsehoods so long as it's in what they believe to be your best interest?
It is not lying to communicate via the channels of public health the strategies that would optimize our utilization of public health resources.
Is the strategy actually working? It sure doesn't seem like it. In fact, it seems to be eroding trust in public institutions on a massive scale with very little other benefit.
It's hard to believe you wrote that with a straight face.
Wow. I believe what you just described is the textbook definition of manipulation. I’m sincerely discouraged right now.
Also known by another name, alternative facts.
That’s pretty much the opposite of results-driven.
Doubleplusgoodful newspeak, comrade.
Let's take OP's statement: "natural immunity is probably just as good as vaccination, we'll accept that as equal for passport purposes". Presumably, the negation of that statement i.e. "natural immunity is probably not just as good as vaccination, we won't accept that as equal to vaccination for passport purposes" would be considered 'lying'. This statement is ridiculously under specified, even if you take out the "probably".
Define natural immunity? Perhaps someone has to take a blood test to show they have the right anti-bodies. Define "just as good". Define "equal to vaccination for passport purposes". Equal how? Why not for other purposes?
All of these questions and lack of clarity are exactly what the parent is talking about. No truth is absolute. There are statements that are less true, but are more effective as communication methods. Politics should prove that to you, and the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it less true.
I'm not condoning lying. I am condoning public policy (including communication to support that policy) that has the end result of saving lives and getting us back to normal. I think a lot of people here are young and rationalists and full of idealism. They have this pure idea that every human being is uniformly spherical and acts 100% rationally, so given all the facts, self-interest will surely steer us into a rationalist utopia, but that's just not the case. Idealists don't account for people working against their own self-interest because of religious fervor. They don't recognize widespread and rapidly spreading ignorance. Rationalists can't explain "doing it for the lulz".
I don't have a lot of love for politicians, but I don't envy their job: They're elected to steer a ship with close to half of the passengers drilling as many holes in the hull as fast as they can. If you have to tell them that drills are dangerous and should be avoided, then that's what you have to do.
I do agree that doing this would likely further slow down vaccination rates, even among unvaccinated people who have not yet gotten COVID. Many will just accept the risk of getting the virus, and then some will end up in the hospital, and some will die.
So while I'm uncomfortable with the lack of acceptance around post-infection immunity when appropriate, I do think it's understandable.
Think of all the untrue things that are said every day in order to not induce panic in our financial system, to discourage bank runs, to discourage hoarding/scalping, to generally promote a functional society. This isn't lying, it's results-driven communication.