[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-...

[bananabiscuit]

I disagree and there are also doctors and experts that disagree.

There is no reason to assume medical experts are free of groupthink. There is also no reason to assume the medical industrial and related government regulators are free from corruption. Which makes it all the more important to question the advice we are given by “experts” and ask if it makes any sense. To me it doesn’t.

[myko]

There is no reason to assume that medical professionals are corrupt in encouraging people to be vaccinated, either. Especially given that the data shows better protection among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

[koheripbal]

I generally agree, but it's important to remember that public health officials are not infallible.

In the beginning of the pandemic, most of them told us NOT to wear masks.

[myko]

Totally. The key is, once new information comes in to base decisions on the updated information. I'm glad that our public health officials are doing so.