[ProjectBarks]

This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author. People don’t get the vaccine strictly on the strength of the vaccine. It’s considering the risk of getting COVID, understanding the long term side effects, and minimizing risk for those around you. It’s also about avoiding mutations of the virus as the higher availability of the virus only provides more opportunities for it to mutate into something more resistant or possessing other less desirable traits. I understand that the post goes into these types of details but with the proliferation of “I read the title so I read the article” types a much less clickbait title should have been chosen. This only vindicates people looking to confirm their biases and leaves out the nuance that is so important to science.

[yodsanklai]

> This feels like an irresponsible title on behalf of the author

The title describes the content of the article. I think people should be treated as adults (esp. on HN). We should be able to discuss Covid-19 science and data without always fearing misinterpretation from anti-vaxxers.

[ProjectBarks]

The original title of the paper was "Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections." It's important to point out that the paper isn't just one fact but a collection of facts that form nuance.

To me science mags title is much more sensationalistic and there is a reason they did not chose a title more closely aligned to what the authors of the original study chose.

[tootie]

You're right. Data is data. That being said there is a pretty irrational contingent on HN these days.

[flowardnut]

go step into the world of "covid vaccines are bad!" for a second (/r/newnormal) and you'll rescind this statement. It's getting out of hand, between misinformation and politicizing how we treat an infectious virus.

[fncypants]

Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Communication is key. Scientists and health professionals fail at it. Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public, because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view. Messaging is critical in public communication.

[TimTheTinker]

> This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with.

No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.

Telling people the truth (including what you don't yet know) and letting them freely assume their own risks is a powerful way to win them over.

> because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view

People don't change their worldview because someone tries to change it for them. Straight facts without manipulation of any sort is the best way.

People know when they're being manipulated, talked down to, and lied to. That's the worst way to try to change their opinion. Fauci and other officials did a lot of this early on, unfortunately, and they lost credibility with large swaths of the public, leaving a truth vacuum that badly misinformed youtubers rushed in to fill.

[matmatmatmat]

> No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.

For better and for worse, this is not true with most people. Most people are most open to changing their viewpoints if you engage them in a manner where you try to take their side, first, and then lead them in a new direction.

Straight facts might work best for you, but I'm afraid they're pretty much a sure-fire away to turn off most adults who've already made up their minds and don't already agree with you.

[richrichardsson]

Search for "people don't change their views based on facts" with your engine of choice for a plethora of articles that confirm the query.

I don't remember the source but I read recently that peer pressure is far more likely to change someones mind about a given subject.

[sharken]

I think the fact approach works well for rational and logical thinking persons.

As for the rest, yes other approaches must be employed instead.

[TimTheTinker]

As long as the approach is respectful and not manipulative... anything less will backfire.

[hncurious]

You're right that communication is critical, but it's precisely because facts are omitted that causes the problem. Those facts just come out later, and that only makes things worse. Instead of transparency and straight forward communication, public health officials are engaging in manipulation of the public. So called noble lies, like telling people masks don't work in order to cover for the lack of mask availability. That burned their credibility and is just one example.

The lies and lies by omission are literal oxygen to anti-vaxxers because they can point out, with proof, that we were lied to. Naturally the next question is, what else are we being lied to about?

Stop lying, start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax and anti-expert sentiment dissipate.

I would also point out that there is an intentional conflation between anti-vaxxers (those opposed to all vaccines) and vaccine hesitant (those who are pro-vaccine generally, but are weary about a new vaccine or were already infected and have natural immunity). The latter are being grouped with the former, and this has also destroyed a great amount of credibility and trust.

[alunchbox]

> Start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax sentiment dissipate.

I've only seen Anti-vaxxers treated as adults from the onset, being upfront about the data etc. It just get disputed, debated and then denied.

I'm burnt out and numb to them at this point. I do agree with you that information shouldn't be omitted; However, the damage is done at this point. It's not going to stop either.

[mbg721]

"Do this willingly and this can all be over...okay, that didn't work, now we're going to make you" isn't exactly what I'd call treating someone like an adult.

[aww_dang]

I'm not convinced the biosecurity state will go away anymore than the TSA will disappear tomorrow. Government agencies rarely cede power back to the citizenry.

[walterbell]

Here is the full conclusion of the paper, rather than the blog post which summarizes the paper:

> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

[bavell]

Sorry, no. Hiding facts from responsible adults is a great way to breed resistance to any subject being discussed. Stop infantilizing your neighbors.

[ghiculescu]

I think this attitude is actually what leads to a lot of hesitancy.

> Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public

It’s very patronizing.

[Trumpi]

No - we have anti-vaxxers because nobody will debate them. Instead we ask them not to post their nonsense and so they just retreat to their echo-chambers and begin reinforcing their views to each other.

[downWidOutaFite]

I've seen many online debates with antivaxers and nobody convinces anybody of anything. People just get angrier and more hardened in their opinions. Everyone goes into it with an us vs them mentality instead of open minded.

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Trying to hide crucial information inside the article or censor it altogether just fuels all these misinformation campaigns.

[asah]

+1 and an example would make your argument even more persuasive

[Pokepokalypse]

>Scientists and health professionals fail at it.

They do just fine.

The problem is "science" "journalism".

[polote]

> a much less clickbait title should have been chosen

It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact.

[koheripbal]

The volume of criticism for posting verifiable facts that might be misused in illogical arguments, is really frustrating.

It's as if we need to post a disclaimer in advance that we agree with the consensus first in order to post a fact like OP.

For example, OP's fact correlates with the recent study that demonstrated that getting one shot of Moderna and one shot of Pfizer was more effective than getting two shots of either.

...and none of that is a surprise to virologists, because a diversity of antibodies is obviously going to be more effective at combating infection, and more importantly, provide broader protection against variants.

...but instead OP gets downvotes because of the fear that some imbecile is going to repost this all over Facebook in order to convince people to not get vaccinated.

Think about the consequences of this reflex. We cannot talk about the truth in-depth because less informed people might be mislead by misinterpreting it. This diminishes the quality of our conversations. It puts a cap on the intelligence of this community.

...and when you first identify this phenomenon - you begin to recognize it all over the place on social media. True verifiable facts being downvoted because they might maybe work against the "greater good" agenda in a less sophisticated forum. ...and that ultimately causes a dumbing down of the conversations - something very noticeable on Reddit and Twitter.

[andybak]

Clickbait and truth are not mutually exclusive. In fact I would suggest that most clickbait is true.

[koheripbal]

This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic.

Knowing that previously infected people maintain immunity high levels against variants is important for people making informed decisions about their situations.

What GP is really worried about is this fact being misused to incentivize people NOT to get the vaccine.

[andybak]

I don't quite understand your point. GP said

> It is not clickbait, (if true) this is just a fact.

And I was pointing out that this statement is based on flawed logic. I wasn't commenting on truth/falsehood or clickbait/non-clickbait. I'm just objecting to incorrectly reasoning from one to the other.

[koheripbal]

I agree that it can be both. In this case, imo, it is not both.

This isn't clickbait because this fact is pertinent.

[myko]

> This isn't just some random fact. It's extremely relevant to the pandemic.

I don't disagree with it being relevant but if one reads just the title of this article and had previously been infected they may believe they do not need to be vaccinated, but that isn't the case.

According to this study folks who were infected previously are more than 2x as likely to be reinfected than those who were previously infected and then vaccinated: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...

[bananabiscuit]

Reducing a 1% chance of re-infection to .5% does not imply that population needs to get vaccinated.

[myko]

This is why we rely on medical professionals to inform these decisions and they do say the population should be vaccinated:

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/people-whove-had-covi...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2021/08/09/covid-...

[raffraffraff]

Yeah. Should be "If you survive covid 19, you will have greater immunity to covid that you would get from a vaccine"

[seoaeu]

Pedantically, dying from covid makes it even less likely you'll catch it again... Really this is all just confusing what the actual goal is: to end the pandemic while minimizing death and suffering

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Well, actually pedantic anti-vaxers would formulate it as "If you survive covid 19, you will have greater immunity to covid than you would get from surviving taking the vaccine"

[aww_dang]

>the actual goal is: to end the pandemic while minimizing death and suffering

We can all agree we want less death and suffering. However, it isn't difficult to imagine that other goals may exist.

"The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world" - Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset

[koheripbal]

This assumes the audience for this title are people that have not yet been infected.

It could also apply, for example, to the hundreds of millions of people world wide who have already been infected.

I don't think a fact should assume an audience.

[raffraffraff]

Yes, but strategically we should probably write headlines that be can't taken out of context to disingenuously argue that they "prove" that vaccines are worthless.

Anyway, re-reading your point... My headline wasn't intended to be aimed at any person. It's a hypothetical statement about covid immunity level after surviving covid. Glad I didn't go into journalism.

[peteradio]

Agreed, the original paper title is more appropriate: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

[jlmorton]

What is the harm?

"I'm very worried about getting Covid, but I'm also worried about the vaccine, so I'll get Covid to protect me against Covid?"

This is an important public health topic to model how the pandemic proceeds as more and more are naturally infected.

[deelowe]

That's exactly it. Almost everyone in my immediate family is more concerned about getting the vaccine than they are covid. And this is AFTER someone in the family has died from it. It is extremely concerning how bad this has gotten. My own mother literally had a panic attack after getting her first shot. My kids' school administrators are making decisions based on these illogical conclusions. I have had school staff tell me that it's best that they all go ahead and get covid. They compared it to chicken pox parties from the 80s. When I mentioned shingles, they told me that was a different disease. I have an at risk child at home. My tolerance for stupidity is waning.

I'm afraid the general publicly is woefully underequipped to engage in nuanced discussions around this topic. They need simple and clear instructions.

[SV_BubbleTime]

I wish I was more surprised about how easily covid made people rationalize authoritarianism.

[Buttons840]

The heart of the issue, and the one we seem most unable to talk about productively is "I'm worried about the vaccine".

[sjg007]

In Minnesota 645k people had covid and 7k died. In contrast 3M are vaccinated and basically nobody has died from the vaccine. In the US 363M vaccine doses have been given and about 7k may have died from vaccination side effects vs 628k who have died from covid from covid.

So the vaccine is safe and effective.

[acituan]

No one in this forum says otherwise.

But you miss human emotions 101: If someone tells you they are worried about something, you don’t throw facts at them as the first thing. You ask them to tell more about their emotions, hear them and make them feel heard. They might as well be missing factual data (as the case with vaccine hesitating folks) but their emotions are real, and unless they are treated as a person they’d be close to influence because they are in a skeptic, anxious state to begin with.

Often people barge in like performing an exorcism expecting the power of data compelling the “possessed” demonized other to the “light”. Such vilification is a self-fulfilling process.

[sjg007]

You are more likely to get hurt or die in car accident on the way to get your vaccine then from the vaccine itself. After that car accident when you are in the hospital recovering you will probably get covid there.

[acituan]

I don't see the relevance of your point. Perhaps you replied to the wrong thread or misunderstood what you've read?

[angelzen]

Vaccine protection is weakening over time (boosters), mutations evading the vaccine are around the corner (Pfizer CEO), epidemiological profile is vastly different between <20 and >70. There are 4 other coronaviruses kids get exposed to when young with no vaccine and naturally build immunity for it for a lifetime.

Over 30: Take the vaccine and hope for the best.

Under 20:

a. Take the vaccine and be naked when the vaccine resistant variant eventually emerges.

b. Don't take the vaccine and build wide spectrum immunity to infections from covid family. Considering that the risk of complications from covid infection for this age group is in the same ballpark as the flu.

[CarelessExpert]

> a. Take the vaccine and be naked when the vaccine resistant variant eventually emerges.

First, this is deeply deeply misleading, to the point of being misinformation. The idea that a version of COVID will pop out that renders the current vaccines completely useless is founded in nothing but alarmist speculation. Could it happen? Maybe. But we have a virus now that's known to be dangerous, for which we have a vaccine that's very effective. To not take that vaccine, now, based on this speculative fear is completely nonsensical.

Second, it's a false dichotomy:

c. Take the vaccine, get a mild breakthrough case of covid later that builds even stronger protection.

[angelzen]

This is also a possibility. The open scenario is: take the vaccine, don't get a breakthrough case (vaccines work as intended and quickly suppress it), but do get a vaccine-resistant infection later on.

If there is more information on the long-term behavior of the immune system conditioned on vaccines and/or natural immunity and/or mutations, please share. My understanding is that nobody has a complete understanding and a reliable prediction model. Everybody is making educated guesses in the dark, though I am very open to learn more from credible sources.

[CyanLite2]

Some folks are looking for any excuse to not get the vaccine.

[aww_dang]

I'm not sure the specific rationalizations are as relevant as the moral questions.

Do individuals have a right to their own body?

Does a collective or a technocrat have a right to coerce an individual into a medical procedure?

If we answer "yes" to the second question, only then does it become relevant because we must next ask:

Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line?

[cogman10]

> Do individuals have a right to their own body?

Insofar as their rights don't impact the rights of others.

Individuals have a right to drink alcohol. They do not have a right to then drive a car.

Vaccination by mandate is an extension of that reasoning. You have a right not to get vaccinated, but you don't have a right to participate in the public. Because restricting public interaction is neigh impossible (Even with imprisonment) the lesser of the two evils is mandated vaccination.

> Is there a limit to what a collective or technocrat can medically impose upon an individual, where and why do we draw this line?

Yes, communicable illnesses prevention. That's the line. It's something that seems to have been lost on the modern era. It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people with disease by force of government (but often just voluntarily). This notion that there is no public interest in disease prevention and instead it's a "individual choice" is modern. Likely due to the advances in medicine, ironically vaccination, that have weakened the effects of most diseases.

I dislike this moral pearl clutching. Perhaps it's because I'm more morally a utilitarian.

At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society to work in general. The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.

[aww_dang]

Thanks for your response.

>It was not controversial 50, 100, or 150+ years ago to quarantine people

However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions.

There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise?

>At the end of the day, the harm caused by vaccination is next to 0 for almost all the population. The small percentage with adverse reactions is a small price to pay for society...

And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda.

> The alternative is a lot more harm that we are currently seeing from the covid deaths.

I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.

[kiba]

However there are unprecedented measures taken today. We're nearly 2 years into lockdowns. Moratoriums on rent, unemployment subsidies, massive increases in gov spending and a host of other unprecedented economic interventions.

These are ineffective because of people's refusal to cooperate. These methods work best if we work together. Because some people chose to ignore measures, it means we're prolonging the misery.

There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly. If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise?

Because the least vulnerable and healthy population can spread diseases to the obese and the elderly.

Exercise is a useful health intervention. It's also not very effective for losing weight. It's also the government's fault that we are obese to begin with, because the governments are responsible for urban design, dietary and market regulation.

I'm not convinced a voluntary quarantine of high risk groups would be more harmful medically or economically. The response has caused incalculable economic damage and disruption of individual's lives.

It is unclear to me why only partial quarantine would be useful. It just means that the virus are spreading among the healthy. The moment we stop the quarantine, the moment people starts dying.

[cogman10]

> There are debates over why the least vulnerable, healthy populations are subject to the same restrictions as the obese and elderly.

The studies are still out, but early reports are showing that delta is hitting more than just the old and the fat [1].

In particular, pregnant woman seem to be at particularly high risk of death. [2]

The problem with these communicable disease is they can mutate. Delta appears to be breaking a lot of the older assumptions about who is at risk. Perhaps that's because the older population is better vaccinated than the younger population and delta is just more deadly for all.

> If obesity is a risk factor and we have a "collective responsibility", then why hasn't the gov mandated exercise?

Because whether or not you exercise does not change your ability to spread COVID. It may improve your chances of survival but it does not change the burden one way or another on how you are affecting society around.

Further, it will take months/years to lose enough weight to eventually move out of the risk category for COVID. A vaccine takes minutes.

> And if this were untrue, where would we see this information? Are there no other incentives we should be considering, such as the great reset, vaccine passports, digital ID, CBDCs or even vanilla economic interventions? We're dealing with a trust deficit in public figures and media institutions. It is hard to blame the cynic for previous incidents of propaganda.

The trust problem is precisely from propaganda. It's because, frankly, Trump kept saying "fake news" and casting doubt on experts without a shred of evidence backing his assertions. Pushing untested and unproven medications which ultimately spawned the "ivermectin" crowd which is now taking horse dewormer to try and combat covid.

The deficit because an autocrat got power and pulled the typical move of an autocrat.

The experts have been straight through covid. It's the yellow journalists and russian interference [3] that have been spitting out mistrust where none existed previously.

[1] https://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/view/younger-people-in...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/covid-icus-doctor...

[3] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[angelzen]

Wild.

'you don't have a right to participate in the public'.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 9. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 13.1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

'quarantine people with disease'.

This is an elementary precaution that everyone, vaccinated or not, should voluntarily take at symptom onset. Not only for covid, but for flu as well. However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of.

[cogman10]

> However, preemptively restricting the rights of healthy people, just because they may eventually catch a disease, is unheard of.

It is not. In fact, most quarantines take exactly that form where entire households, communities, or in the extreme case cities are locked down. [1]

COVID is unique in that it is both more deadly and more infectious than the flu. That's why the measures have been so extreme. They are warranted.

Further, COVID has the major issue that a large number of people are asymptomatic. It doesn't work to say "Well, just have people feeling sick stay home" when a large number of people that are spreading the disease don't even know they have it. [2]

> 'you don't have a right to participate in the public'.

I was perhaps unclear, I mean "being infected with a disease removes your right to participate in public". Without the disease modifier, yes, you have a right to public interaction. Just like you have a right to drive without the drunk modifier.

In any event, even the UN agrees that quarantining seemingly healthy people in the face of covid isn't a human rights violation. [3]

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/historyquarantine.html

[2] https://hartfordhealthcare.org/about-us/news-press/news-deta...

[3] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/guidance_on_quaran...

[nybble41]

Don't forget:

Article 29. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible. ... In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. ... These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Which between them basically nullify articles 1 though 28 to the extent that the infringement can be justified on the basis of "morality" or "public order" or "duties the community"… which is how governments aiming to present themselves as anything more than petty criminal gangs have always justified violating human rights, with or without the UDHR.

Regarding the original quote, though:

> you don't have a right to participate in the public

You do have a right to participate in the public—or more precisely, no one has the right to stop you from interacting voluntarily with whichever members of the public you choose, so long as the other parties consent to the interaction. However, if that participation in the public leads to you getting someone else sick through your own negligence or reckless disregard for others' welfare then you are morally responsible for the consequences of that infection and liable to make the injured party whole, or as close to whole as they can possibly get. Ergo, you ought to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen, for example though vaccination, for your own sake as well as others'.

[polote]

And so what ? We should lie so that they take it ?

[actually_a_dog]

You appear to believe it would be immoral to lie to people to get them to take the vaccine. I don't believe anti-vaxxers want to die from COVID. Is it not also immoral to allow people who don't wish to die to die needlessly? It would seem to be a "lesser of two evils" sort of situation, and, in that case, the harm of lying is probably less than the harm of allowing people to die senselessly.

[sleavey]

I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government. I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people.

I suggest, if you are unfamiliar with his work, that you read up on Kant's categorical imperative, in particular his absolute prohibition against lying. He argues that lying, even noble lying, is bad because it dehumanises the ones being lied to. If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that.

[actually_a_dog]

> I don't want to be lied to in any form by my government.

Completely understandable, and, I agree.

> I believe they can always govern by telling the truth, and if they did so they would find themselves commanding more respect from the people.

Regarding "can always govern by telling the truth," that's demonstrably untrue. For instance, there is such a thing as classified information for a reason (that reason ostensibly being national security). Yes, this does get abused at times, but that's not an argument that the government should not classify any information. Given your reference to Kant, I don't necessarily expect you to find this persuasive, but, I wager many reasonable people would.

> ...Kant's categorical imperative....

I am actually familiar, but I reject the logic of it. It's... well... too categorical. I can't accept a principle that forbids me to take an action that may save a life. For example, I would be prohibited from hiding someone in my home who's being pursued by people who want to kill them, if the pursuers asked me directly where that person was.

> If we stop treating each other as humans with rights, needs and desires, we will find ourselves in a very bad place - history has shown us that.

I agree with this, but I reject the idea that not following the categorical imperative at all times necessarily deprives anyone of any right.

[roenxi]

Based on the number of deaths, a very large percentage of people have already had COVID.

Given that there is a non-0% chance of death or harm from taking the vaccine, why should they then get vaccinated? They are already less of a risk to themselves and others than someone who has been vaccinated.

[tootie]

RTFA

> The researchers also found that people who had SARS-CoV-2 previously and then received one dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine were more highly protected against reinfection than those who once had the virus and were still unvaccinated.

[Scoundreller]

Which is still a good argument against double-vaccinating them, at least when vaccines were hard to come by (which is still the case in most of the world).

At least that’s how France does it, and that strategy might come in handy again as they plan to give boosters with influenza vaccines to everyone over 65.

[tootie]

Single dose has been the recommendation for a while in the US.

[Scoundreller]

Only for JNJ vaccine which has been 1-shot for everyone.

[andybak]

> why should they then get vaccinated?

I haven't done the sums but I suspect the risk of harm from the vaccine is less than the benefits the vaccine gives (especially when you factor in the duration of protecection depending when you had Covid vs when you had the vaccine).

I know people who've recovered from serious Covid and still got vaccinated. I would.

[gammarator]

Serological tests have consistently shown that far fewer people have had COVID than have been vaccinated, for instance.

[walterbell]

What's a good source of those numbers?

[nradov]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...

The CDC estimates that 36% of Americans have been infected.

[switch007]

> People don’t get the vaccine strictly on the strength of the vaccine. It’s considering the risk of getting COVID, understanding the long term side effects, and minimizing risk for those around you. It’s also about avoiding mutations of the virus as the higher availability of the virus only provides more opportunities for it to mutate into something more resistant or possessing other less desirable traits.

Erm everyone I know under 40 got it because of a huge marketing campaign, wanting to travel with as few restrictions as possible and not wanting a vaccine passport to party.

[vmception]

> The research impresses Nussenzweig and other scientists who have reviewed a preprint of the results, posted yesterday on medRxiv

Its very irresponsible, look at this nonsense masquarading as peer review of a preprint 24 hours ago

Furthermore, getting a vaccine for last year’s ailment cannot be compared to this year’s ailment, although its obvious people dont really have a choice in the matter the study should at least lead with that. There will be delta specific vaccines soon, compare to natural immunity then.