Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say. The position you articulate is certainly in vogue at the moment but I'm not aware of any study that supports it, let alone one that's methodologically sound.

> Be careful not to conflate what the science says and what scientists say.

Could you elaborate on that cryptic statement? What is the science saying, and what are the scientists saying? What is the difference and why does it matter here?

So what happens in a year or two if, however unlikely it may seem now, bad medium-to-long term effects of the vaccines start to show up?

After spending this much political capital, no one could ever afford to admit that the unvaccinated, especially those who already had COVID, had a point. So would there just be a huge cover-up, or would They (with a capital T) push propaganda that says "The science has changed, but the people who didn't follow the previous science were lucky and unpatriotic!"?

There are already all sorts of demonstrable long term effects of COVID. No speculation necessary.

How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point?

> How much time must pass without long term effects materializing before unvaccinated people admit that the vaccinated had a point?

Rhetorical question, but:

Given what we know about long term effects of vaccination, about 3-4 months without "long term effects".

Needless to say, this mark has been passed more than once - in trials in 2020, and then again in mass vaccination programs in 2021.

People are about to be coerced into an injection against their will and could suffer ill effects, with no legal recourse. If it turns out they were right, then they were screaming the truth the whole time and nobody listened. Are you okay with all that?

People are already catching a devastating disease against their will, and are already suffering ill effects. Are you beginning to see how all of your speculation about hypotheticals has real world analogs that are already occuring?

Many of the people in my speculation about hypotheticals already had COVID. It's not an exclusive-or.

> If it turns out that the world _was_ flat, then they were screaming the truth the whole time and nobody listened. Are you okay with all that?

If.

I mean, yes? It all depends on how plausible the original proposition is. So the proposition under test here is "are COVID vaccines preferable to COVID"? The data from the real world is here and it's not even close.

> So what happens in a year or two if, however unlikely it may seem now, bad medium-to-long term effects of the vaccines start to show up?

I am not going to say that's impossible.

I am going to suggest that there would be Nobel prize in medicine waiting for the people who can explain the novel mechanism for _how_ those supposed much delayed side effects are possible.

Vaccine side effects occur shortly afterwards (1). They do not surface a year later - and it would have to be a year later, not 6 months, given when mass vaccination programs started & what we haven't seen happen in the real world. And vaccine side effect also do not surface 6 months later, FWIW.

Why do you feel invested in fantasising about "vindication, propaganda, cover-up". Is this heathy? You're nearly there with "could not ever afford to admit being wrong"

1) "In virtually all cases, vaccine side effects are seen within the first two months after rollout."

https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12143-three-things-to-k...

It's not so much Science as it is Public Health Policy informed by the Science.

The distinction is important because were dealing with masses of people here, not some kind of simple objective reality.

If we all acted very rationally and conscientiously, the world would be a totally different place.

Where did you get that science?

"being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated"[1]

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

that correction is not relevant to this thread. The title is misleading when talking about vaccines alone vs infection alone, but it is not misleading in regards to this discussion - "you should still get a vaccine even if you have natural immunity". The study DID show that vaccine + infection is better than just infection.

Here is more evidence:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-p...

Lol. This is not a reason for mandate.

this comment thread was not about the legitimacy of mandates but feel free to pivot