Something extremely frustrating about virtually all reporting to date is that I haven't seen any statistics as to infection and reinfection rates among front line workers. The implication is that immunity post exposure/infection doesn't exist, but I suspect that this data is being deliberately withheld because it would suggest that frontline workers don't need vaccines, or at the very least don't need a mandate.

> I suspect that this data is being deliberately withheld because it would suggest that frontline workers don't need vaccines, or at the very least don't need a mandate.

Of all the possible reasons you couldn't find this data, a vast conspiracy is the most likely cause? Come on.

Don't you think it would be a public service for news to report such information? Have it listed somewhere conveniently?

It would literally be the most accurate look at worse case constant exposure.

I'm not implying any sort of conspiracy, just an emergent combination of social pressure and implicit taboo. Lots of powerful and not so powerful reputations are riding on the "danger" of this virus and the "safety and efficacy" of the vaccines. And if that's not enough for you, don't forget that fear gets clicks.

There's no reliable evidence that healthcare workers wearing proper PPE are exposed to extremely large viral loads. Nor is there evidence that symptom severity depends on initial viral load (beyond some minimum threshold for infection). It's a plausible hypothesis but the human challenge trials necessary to prove or disprove it haven't been done yet.

> Nor is there evidence that symptom severity depends on initial viral load (beyond some minimum threshold for infection).

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19057-5

> It's a plausible hypothesis

It's extremely plausible, and been demonstrated before in influenza, poxviruses, and other viruses. The human challenge trials necessary to prove a dose-dependent relationship between fall height and lethality haven't been conducted, either, but we have sufficient evidence from longitudinal and natural experiments to draw firm conclusions.

That study you linked isn't relevant to my point. The question is whether the initial viral dose at the point of infection is correlated with symptom severity later in the disease course. That remains unknown. The study looked at the relation between current viral load and symptoms after infection, which is an entirely separate issue.