[spfzero]

If they've already had and recovered from Covid, as in the case of this 100 MM, their case fatality rate is nothing near that, and may well be lower than that for vaccinated-but-never-infected people.

Their choice is this, if they are otherwise healthy and young: With protection as good or better than the vaccinated, should I get a shot that might lower my already minuscule chance of dying or serious disease by a further tiny amount.

I could see rational people coming down on both sides of that.

[vaidhy]

Let us assume person x already got covid? The rationale for refusing the vaccine is either (a) they believe they do not need it or (b) they do so on ideological belief.

If it is (a), evidence shows that covid + vaccine is better than either alone and hence no reason to refuse the vaccine.

If it is (b), there is perfect justification for calling that stancy as an idiotic stance.

[throwawayfear]

It is true that evidence suggests past infection + vaccine is best. But the evidence also shows that antibodies from past infection are superior to two shots of Pfizer which the majority of people were rolling with maskless just fine.

So regarding option a, it’s moreso the case that there’s no legitimate reason TO bother with the vaccine if you have those antibodies already. A marginal improvement at best over what is already better than two shots of Pfizer, is not worth the long-term unknowns to me.

Source:

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

There is also new evidence that it may be safer for boys to just get covid rather than vaccination.

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/10/boys-more-at-r...

Knowing this, will you still say there’s no reason to refuse it? Why would you elevate yourself into a position where you believe yourself to be an arbiter of this? The evidence is clear that the antibodies tens of millions already have from past infection are excellent. So stop coming up with false dilemmas.