[reducesuffering]

> Then there's the elephant in the room: so few people have been tested that it really difficult to know who has had it. Anyone who has had a cold in the past 18 months is going to claim they had covid, regardless of whether they tested positive or not.

There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.

>I think it's a little irresponsible to society to give anyone an out on getting vaccinated.

I think it's irresponsible to require people who most science points to having better protection naturally, to also have to get a vaccine. From this point of view, 2 dose vaccine still have less protection than natural antibodies. Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all...

[michaelmrose]

> There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.

The virus is a moving target and what was true of the alpha variant may not be true of delta or downstream. I guess it depends on what you mean by excuse. If you mean allow people to say go on a cruise with a positive covid test as opposed to a vaccination record that seems tentatively reasonable. If you mean allow workers at an old folks home to opt out based on a prior positive test that is unreasonable. If it makes you even possibly slightly less likely to kill the old folks you should get the jab.

The real problem is the grey area created by such a rule. There are probably multiple times as many people who think they have had covid compared to those that have actually had covid that have never been tested. I know people in the US who had an illness in 2019 who are sure they had covid. If you give them an opening they wont let it go. It will surely get ugly.

[reducesuffering]

If folks can't produce a confirmed positive covid test or antibody test, then they can effectively be treated as unprotected because there's no evidence they have protection, that's fine.

> If you mean allow workers at an old folks home to opt out based on a prior positive test that is unreasonable. If it makes you even possibly slightly less likely to kill the old folks you should get the jab.

Where is the line drawn? Maybe it would be more effective for people with 2 doses to get a third? What science is there showing antibodies + 1 shot is more marginal protection than 3 shots?

[michaelmrose]

It should be drawn where it's safe to draw it based on current knowledge.

I don't believe that it's firmly established that natural immunity is as good as 2 shots or natural immunity + 1 shot.

We bought more than enough doses to vaccinate everyone and downsides are small.

Consider a population of 10 million with natural immunity. Let us suppose that vaccination with Pfizer will kill between 0 and 1.

Suppose that 1% would fall ill and 1% of those die. That is 1000 preventable deaths.

It needn't be very much of a difference just 1/100th of 1% to vastly outweigh the risk of a very safe vaccine.

[croes]

The vaccine also leads to natural antibodies. It only contains the spike protein so the immune system can safely develop the antibodies.

[mulmen]

> Maybe we should require the vaccinated to keep getting more vaccine shots until science shows they're at par with natural antibodies, lowest hanging fruit and all...

Why would we do that when the vaccines are safer than the actual disease and effective enough to contain the spread?

[reducesuffering]

There are repeated calls demanding people with antibodies should be required to get a vaccine shot. However most available science points towards natural immunity having slightly better protection. Is there any science whatsoever showing that antibodies + 1 more shot is better than 2 vaccine shots + 1 additional shot? If antibodies are still more protected than 2 shots, how do we know which option provides the most marginal protection? You could easily make the case that since the current science is showing natural antibodies have more comprehensive protection than 2 dose shots, that maybe our first priority should be giving 2 dosers a third shot?

[mulmen]

I misinterpreted your post as some kind of “herd immunity” scheme where we all get infected and that is somehow better. That doesn’t seem to be the argument you were making so I am sorry.

It seems like we should be optimizing for vaccinating as much of the (non-antibody) population up to a level where the spread of the virus is contained rather than maximizing resistance in the population with antibodies. There must be a threshold at which the low hanging fruit becomes “people without antibodies” rather than “people with fewer antibodies”. I’m not sure it matters if the antibodies are from the vaccine or infection.

[reducesuffering]

It sounds like we're in agreement. Focusing on requirements for confirmed positive covid patients is of negligible benefit. Once the "people without antibodies" actual risk factor is curbed, then we hopefully have had the scientific research to determine what the next best lowest hanging fruit to address is.

> I’m not sure it matters if the antibodies are from the vaccine or infection.

I'm not entirely sure either. There is some research that since the vaccine is just the spike protein, while natural immune response was to the entire virus, that the natural immune response is more comprehensive.

[_Microft]

Isn’t the number of antibodies after a COVID infection far lower than after receiving the vaccine? I thought that’s why a jab after an infection is actually still recommended, to boost the number to levels that vaccinated see?

[wait_a_minute]

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

The study provides evidence that immunity triggered by SARS-CoV-2 infection will be extraordinarily long-lasting. Adding to the good news, “the implications are that vaccines will have the same durable effect”, says Menno van Zelm, an immunologist at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

[ryandrake]

> There are many many people who have confirmed positive COVID tests. At least excuse those.

Yes, but don't just take their word for it. Confirmed clinical test should be the bar. I fear if the "you don't need a vaccine if you've had it" narrative gains traction, even if it is undeniably true, it's going to result in the anti-vaxxers lying about having already had the virus, to manufacture another excuse for themselves. If we've learned anything in the last year, it's that any system that relies on people to pinky-swear they're telling the truth will be exploited by a small but significant minority of people.

[braincat31415]

Here is the thing (and that's something that people with kids might relate to) -- we already know that covid is not a danger to kids, and that there are potential side effects involved when vaccinating kids. There is no way in hell I would vaccinate my child because "it is good for the society as a whole".

[ceejayoz]

> we already know that covid is not a danger to kids

We don't actually know this. We know it's less dangerous to them thus far. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56696907 https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/politifact/202...

[travoc]

"Thus far" is implied. We only ever know what we know thus far and we could always learn something new.

[baq]

it really isn't. it should be, but you'll be much better off not expecting that.

[baq]

covid absolutely is a danger to kids, it's just less of a danger than to old people. the question is whether risk of vaccination is significantly less than risk of covid. we don't really know yet, but i'd surely vaccinate my kids if it meant they couldn't transmit the disease to their grandparents.

[reducesuffering]

I agree entirely. My point is that there are a significant amount of people who aren't even there. There hasn't been acquiescing past demanding exception-less vaccine passports.

[wait_a_minute]

It's not your business to police this and that's not how it works in the United States. It is not anyone's business to demand a confirmed clinical test. Florida and other states have been open for a long time now and their covid numbers are declining same as wherever there are attempts at more mandates. What use is a confirmed clinical test there?

We are not a collective. We do not have these types of arbiters who will police and decide what is best for everyone. We are a nation of individuals and if you cannot trust people to "pinky-swear" on this matter then how can you trust them to do anything? Including vote on anything? Or reason? Who will make all the decisions for them?

[ryandrake]

Every system has some number of malicious actors. You should trust, but you must also verify. If a system designer assumes no bad actors exist, the system will be quickly exploited, which is why voluntary mask mandates and distancing rules didn't work. We have locks on doors, passwords for computers, seat belts in cars, and rules against drunk driving, precisely because of a small number of dishonest and reckless people.

[wait_a_minute]

Wear a mask and get vaccinated if you’re not and stay home if you’re scared.

Florida and other states have not had mandates and they’re doing fine per the data.