[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.