[mioasndo]

> COVID-19 Antibody Tests cost more than the vaccine (roughly $40 Vs. $16/dose).

That's not a valid reason at all.

> We lack the quantity of Antibody Tests we'd need.

We also lacked vaccine quantity, and many people still do.

> We'd need to set up additional systems and processes to accommodate the testing and proof (which, again, is a cost).

Meh, that's a very weak reason considering it's a small incremental cost to vaccine passports and covid testing.

> The implicit assumption that often go along with these natural immunity proponents is that the vaccine is unsafe.

That's just your 'implicit assumption'.

> Since if the vaccine was safe, the logistical and cost arguments win the day, the only way to make the argument otherwise is to start with the assumption that the vaccine is unsafe and work backwards.

Except vaccine efficacy is much lower than natural immunity and vaccine efficacy wears off over time. We literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved.

> Therefore, I propose that the argument between natural immunity Vs. vaccine is largely a distraction that people who believe the vaccine to unsafe use to obfuscate their goals.

Your comment here is a distraction. You literally haven't brought up a single fact or data point on vaccine vs natural immunity efficacy.

> Since the data on vaccine safety is a settled issue

How is it a settled issue when there is literally zero data on long-term effects?

> you're really just discussing if the US should waste money on multiple redundant workflows so that vaccine hesitant people can feel better.

Cool story bud.

[Someone1234]

Your argument has holes.

- If the vaccine is safe.

- If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logistically).

- If tracking the vaccine is easier.

Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense. You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not."

You yourself admit that that is your actual reason:

> Furthermore we literally have ZERO data on the long-term effects of the mrna vaccines. Plenty of drugs have been found to cause harm 5, 10, 15 years after being approved.

The "but efficacy" response is confusing at best. If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people, it can still be the logical course of action at population scales for the other stated benefits (logistical, tracking, and cost).

[mioasndo]

> If the vaccine is safe.

Something you don't know. If you want a sincere discussion you might want to at least admit the obvious.

> If the vaccine is cheaper (directly and logically).

First of all you don't know if it's cheaper. Second, people are free to pay for anything they want regardless of how cheap it is. I'm sure the vast majority of vaccine-sceptical people would readily pay for their own tests.

> If tracking the vaccine is easier.

Why do you keep with the 'if, if , if'? I did not make any assertions or assumptions that intersect with your ifs whatsoever. All of your 'ifs' are completely irrelevant, and I'm guessing by the fact that you start explaining every supposed hole with an 'if', that you understand that you can't even verify the validity of these supposed holes you found.

> Why add the natural immunity workflow? It doesn't make sense.

Because natural immunity is more effective and some people do not want to get the vaccine?

> You've just added a bunch of complexity for no stated payoff. Again, this entire argument hinges on the first question being answered "no" or "maybe not."

I've stated multiple payoffs multiple times already:

- We do not know the long-term side effects of mrna vaccines.

- MRNA vaccine efficacy is lower than natural immunity, and all data points to MRNA vaccines wearing off significantly after 6 months.

- Some people may not want to get the vaccine for other reasons, the actual reasons are completely irrelevant - in a free society people get to choose what biologically active substances they inject into their own bodies.

> You yourself admit that that is your actual reason:

So looks like you did notice one of the reasons I gave you? Interesting that you quoted it, yet completely ignored the substance and failed to challenge or respond to the actual point.

> If the vaccine does literally nothing for natural immune people,

Stop with the 'ifs'. If you don't know the validity of your own point, don't make the point.

> for the other stated benefits (logical, tracking, and cost).

These other stated benefits coming directly from your imagination right? Or are these the 'if' kind of benefits?

'IF the vaccines are a perfect solution, we should forcibly vaccinate everyone.' - cool story bud

[Someone1234]

> First of all you don't know if it's cheaper.

Yes I do. The Antibody Test costs $42 and the vaccine costs $16/dose in the US today.

> Second, people are free to pay for anything they want regardless of how cheap it is.

Nobody was proposing that individuals pay for either one of these. The US Government should pay for it using taxes so that even the poorest citizen has access.

> I'm sure the vast majority of vaccine-sceptical people would readily pay for their own tests.

Letting people self-certify as a public health strategy has been problematic in the past and would be problematic here too.

> I've stated multiple payoffs multiple times already:

But they don't add up. Your "list" boils down to:

- It is unsafe (which is factually inaccurate).

- The vaccine may not add to natural immunity (which as I said, being cheaper and simpler than the alternative testing makes it still worthwhile).

- It is unsafe, and we live in a free society (which is factually inaccurate and irrelevant).

You've made zero arguments for why a cheaper and simpler safe vaccine is inferior to a more expensive and complex antibody test regime. That's because your entire argument hinges on "the vaccine is unsafe" and little else.

[mioasndo]

> Yes I do. The Antibody Test costs $42 and the vaccine costs $16/dose in the US today.

You're ignoring economies of scale, ignoring basic economics (increase supply - price goes down), ignoring the fact that vaccines require 2 dozes - and potentially more, as well as ignoring the additional costs of administering vaccines multiple times. Also, I would like to see where you're getting those numbers from, since a quick google search directly contradicts your numbers:

> The U.S. government will pay Pfizer Inc nearly $2 billion for 100 million additional doses of its COVID-19 vaccine to bolster its supply as the country grapples with a nationwide spike in infections.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-pf...

> Nobody was proposing that individuals pay for either one of these.

I literally just proposed it to your face 2 times in a row.

> The US Government should pay for it using taxes so that even the poorest citizen has access.

Oh, look at you, so concerned about the poorest citizen that you want to explicitly deny them the possibility to pay for their own tests and force them to get vaccinated against their will. What a champion of the poor.

> Letting people self-certify as a public health strategy has been problematic in the past and would be problematic here too.

Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ? Do you want to respond to my actual statement or just continue with these weak strawmen?

> It is unsafe (which is factually inaccurate).

For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand?

> The vaccine may not add to natural immunity (which as I said, being cheaper and simpler than the alternative testing makes it still worthwhile).

Another strawman completely unrelated to anything I've said.

> - It is unsafe, and we live in a free society (which is factually inaccurate and irrelevant).

Do you see the words 'safe' or 'unsafe' anywhere in my 3rd point? No? Are you going to continue making these fallacious, insincere strawmen, or are you secure enough with your beliefs to actually defend them honestly?

> That's because your entire argument hinges on "the vaccine is unsafe" and little else.

I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects.

It's pretty cringy how dishonest you are tbh.

[Someone1234]

> You're ignoring economies of scale

No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset.

> Did I say anything about 'self-certify' ?

You argued that people should be able to pay for and provide their own tests. That's self-certification. If you're arguing for the state to do it instead, then we're back to square one (i.e. that the logistics don't favor it).

> For the fourth time - show me the data on long term effects. Which part of 'long-term effects' don't you understand?

You cannot argue these two thing together in good faith:

- Natural immunity provides long term immunity, without long term data.

- We cannot know on the vaccine because we lack long term data.

Pick one or the other. Not both.

> I've never made a single assertion about the safety of the vaccines other than that we don't know the long term side effects.

So you didn't make any except that same one in every single one of your comments?

[LegitShady]

>No, my entire argument is built on economies of scale. Which favor a vaccine for every person, rather than an antibody test for a subset of a subset.

"Take this medical treatment you don't want because I believe in economies of scale"

"My body my choice, and you can put your economy of scale wherever you want but not in my bloodstream - I'd rather not since I've already had covid"

"bbbut I believe in economies of scale!"

the end

Forcing people to take medical procedures they don't want might be last step in a long chain of things, which include a test for natural immunity due to presence of antibodies.

[dekhn]

you're not arguing in good faith and much of your argument is just illogical. There's no reason to do this, it won't convince anybody , in fact it will make most people just ignore you.

[throwaway192874]

right? These word by word break down responses don't ever get anywhere

the whole argument he's making has operates on the presumtion that the vacccine is unsafe, contrary to mainstream scientific opinion. Then the only evidence he has to back that up is lack of evidence on long term effects.

But...the type of which would potentially appease him is only possible with a time machine, so it's literally impossible to appease him

[mioasndo]

Say something of substance instead of alluding to some 'illogical' argument you supposedly found but are unable to identify.

[34679]

>Why add the natural immunity workflow?

The natural immunity workflow:

Do I feel sick?

No -> Go about your day

Yes -> Stay at home

[mthoms]

>vaccine efficacy is much lower than natural immunity

Citation? The linked article quotes medical experts who say the opposite.