It might be different if there were any cost to it. But there isn't. So invariably the people bitching about natural immunity are just doing it to make a point, usually political.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
But even if we knew natural infection prevented future infections in all (which it doesn't, people get double or triple infected), it still wouldn't make sense. (For if it leaves you open to reinfection, see spaced exposure, initial viral load, etc.) Because we don't have the records to corroborate everyone's claims they were infected. And, a lot of the people who would claim to have already been infected I have little trust in to be honest, let alone the difficulty of self-diagnosing.
There's no cost to getting the damn shot, so what's the fucking problem with requiring it?
You make an impassioned and personally attacking me case that natural immunity should exempt you, but why not get the vaccine?
Bodily autonomy is kind of an important topic, is it not? Why should some asshole force me to get an unnecessary medical procedure for a common respiratory virus I already had in order to work or enter many places of business? Why does the government get to force this medical procedure on me?
You can't argue for bodily autonomy and simultaneously support vaccination passports and things like that. I mean you can, but it makes your argument a whole lot weaker.
But the CDC did announce that since delta people who recovered from an infection have better immune response than those who are only vaccinated. I asked the OP to clarify because there is false information out there that this fact is being suppressed "aggressively" when in fact the CDC announced it!
The point isn't that infection carries no immune benefits. It's that vaccines always carry immune benefits so everyone should be forced to get one (very rare cases of immune system maladies aside).
Sure, happy to explain my reasoning. You said "I agree people should get the shot." Unfortunately, a lot of times that phrase is followed, either explicitly or based on context with the rest of the conversion, by "but it's their choice and I oppose mandates". The use of "should" that people use for "should eat right" not "should wear a seatbelt". It's gotten to the point that if I see such a phrase without specifying something like "everyone should get vaccinated", I assume it's an anti-mandate (and often antivaxer)
It's trivial to find this information.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cdc+natural+immunity&t=brave&iar=n...
> The CDC is finally recognizing 'natural immunity' — legislators should follow suit
> The Hill on MSN.com|1 day ago
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/the-cdc-is-finally-...
This just confirms their point, the vaccine passports in the US don't have any allowances for natural immunity - it's vaccine or nothing.
who agressively dismissed this?