[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...