Because the immunity still works. Both empirically and according to the antibody tests. Despite (or thanks to, if this actually works like booster shots) regular contact with many new people and all strain waves declared. If by some miracle all my immunity comes from the first contact and has nothing to do with anything newer then Ok, cool, but this doesn't mean the vaccine based on the same or older strain is better. Given the antibodies level I don't think need to boost it or have higher chances of infecting anybody than vaccinated people do.
> What about when
Perhaps I will get a shot once an updated vaccine gets released and about a year passes.
> By that logic you should go get Lyme Disease and not the vaccine before it. Build up your immunity.
AFAIK with the Lyme disease the chances it will work out this way - without harm and with reliable immunity as the result are very low if any. With coronaviruses the chance is well above 50% when you are young and fit. Nevertheless I still recommend everyone who doesn't have much antibodies yet go and get the shot already.
> Describe exactly the scientific reasoning that explains what is “tested enough”
Not exactly scientific, just intuitive: it has been deployed to large diverse population in diverse set of places, some reasonable time passed, it helped a lot, no bugs found.
You write a lot (for what I want thank you, and I would feel very grateful if you managed to change my mind, I really value input which can correct or expand my understanding), mostly reasonable, but seemingly ignore (or excuse me if I missed a clear answer) the key question of mine: what's the reason (strictly scientific or speculative, I don't insist) to believe the vaccines will get me better antibodies than those I already have? As for my worry it can actually weaken my immunity I'm perfectly aware it's just a superstition based on nothing else but lack of knowledge + "don't mess with what works" mentality so I don't ask for any counterarguments to this.
And by the way, vaccines are not just a virus/mRNA, there also are adjuvants (a word even the spell checker doesn't know) which contribute a lot to both the intended effect and adverse reactions AFAIK. AFAIK this is why many people (including many of those I know personally) still feel terribly sick the day after a the shot even if they were already immune.
Fun fact: there are places in Europe where you can get vaccinated (legally, with ab approved vaccine) but won't be given the certificate so all the places requiring vaccination will still demand you to get vaccinated again. No matter the antibodies you've gotten in response to the vaccine.
The second is this:
> … to believe the vaccines will get me better antibodies than those I already have
My point isn’t that you need to rush out and get the vaccine right this second - it’s that your immune response is equivalent to having got the vaccine except that in the future, just like those who received the vaccine you will need some sort of re-exposure via contracting the virus from another person or via a vaccine in order to maintain your immune response.
You’re suggesting you won’t get a vaccine as this occurs - instead of obtaining a booster shot equivalent which would train your immune system without risking severe illness you’d prefer to contract COVID again and roll the dice. No clue when you obtained it, maybe even walking around spreading it asymptotically…
Your strategy works for the short term, but fails in the medium to long term.
> in the future, just like those who received the vaccine you will need some sort of re-exposure via contracting the virus from another person or via a vaccine in order to maintain your immune response.
I just believe I contact it every day (or every week - I don't really know what the percent of infected people around is) and maintain my immune response this way. I use crowded public transport several times a day (wearing a mask of course), also meet many people and they mostly don't wear masks outside public transport and groceries (and even there many people leave their noses uncovered).
And I don't even have to speculate about this as long as I watch the level of the antibodies.
I don't say I am going to avoid the vaccine forever and rather go get infected when my immunity wears off. I just believe I only should go and get the shot once I see the level of the antibodies decreased. E.g. the Austrian government thinks the same.
Am I wrong?
If you’re worried about mRNA for absolutely no scientific or educated reason whatsoever then why not get JnJ?
Even if you somehow know that you got a “newer” strain eventually there will be even more new strains. Are you just planning on getting yourself sick forever? What about when we are able to predict the strains that will become prevalent and we can just send out boosters shots for those? Are you going to sit it out and try and get sick instead?
By that logic you should go get Lyme Disease and not the vaccine before it. Build up your immunity.
> But I wouldn't hurry even if they were because not tested enough.
Describe exactly the scientific reasoning that explains what is “tested enough” and your educated and scientific basis for this. Every physician and scientist says that if there are troubles with a vaccine they appear shortly after (a month or maybe slightly longer) the vaccine goes into the population. Please explain the exact scientific details explaining why the mRNA vaccines or the Johnson & Johnson vaccine would not follow this pattern.