[johncolanduoni]

Your first link does not actually claim that “vaccination always offers stronger protection than getting the virus”. It indicates “among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 [the study] shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus”. So it’s comparing infected + vaccinated to just infected, not just infected vs just vaccinated.

You have just (unintentionally) shared misinformation about the vaccine. Would you support deleting your comment from HN?

[noptd]

Or even their entire account (to continue with the YouTube parallel).

[rberg]

So rephrasing what you said, unvaccinated individuals who are twice as likely to get reinfected than those with a who were vaccinated after infection means that vaccination doesn't always offer stronger protection than getting the virus?

This isn't exhaustive in the sense that it doesn't cover all permutations of vaccinated, infected, and, but it shows that at least infected + vaccinated is better than infected. That seems to meet the criteria that vaccination always offer stronger protection than getting the virus (at least in the vaccinated + infected vs infected populations).

But even a cursory glance at the study shows that the authors of the study knew this wasn't exhaustive, but they cite research [1] backing up OPs claim, and then add their voice to back up that vaccine > infection, vaccine + infection > infection, and make OPs conclusion in the Discussion section.

RTFS

[1]https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/2/138

[johncolanduoni]

> This isn't exhaustive in the sense that it doesn't cover all permutations of vaccinated, infected, and, but it shows that at least infected + vaccinated is better than infected. That seems to meet the criteria that vaccination always offer stronger protection than getting the virus (at least in the vaccinated + infected vs infected populations).

It is consistent with that criteria, but generally “always” means something stronger than “we have evidence it holds in one case”. Especially if that case is the rarest permutation.

> But even a cursory glance at the study shows that the authors of the study knew this wasn't exhaustive, but they cite research [1] backing up OPs claim, and then add their voice to back up that vaccine > infection, vaccine + infection > infection, and make OPs conclusion in the Discussion section.

The paper you just linked was cited on the line “Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 has been documented, but the scientific understanding of natural infection-derived immunity is still emerging” in the OP’s article. The closest line I can find to “back up that vaccine > infection” is an offhand “ Although such laboratory evidence continues to suggest that vaccination provides improved neutralization of SARS-CoV-2 variants, limited evidence in real-world settings to date corroborates the findings that vaccination can provide improved protection for previously infected persons” which doesn’t seem like a particularly strong stance for “vaccine > infection”. Especially when we get back to the original claim which used “always”.

And it appears that they may have been wise in not going that far, since now that we have studies in review that directly measure the endpoints we’re discussing it’s certainly not clear that this is true[1][2].

I’ll wait for those to get peer reviewed and more widely discussed before I’d be comfortable saying “in most cases infection > vaccine” (note I didn’t use the word “always”, which I doubt any researcher or clinician would) but the actual opposing claims in the papers you’ve cited are comparatively tangential to the original “always vaccine > infection” claim.

[1]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.20.21255670v... [2]: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

[aioprisan]

This was in the context of reinfections, read the context of the comments and the article. The argument being made is that because someone got infected with COVID, they should not need to get a vaccine because natural immunity provides better protection, which is clearly false per the CDC. You are less likely to get reinfected or wind up in the hospital, per the article: "The study of hundreds of Kentucky residents with previous infections through June 2021 found that those who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with those who were fully vaccinated. The findings suggest that among people who have had COVID-19 previously, getting fully vaccinated provides additional protection against reinfection. Additionally, a second publication from MMWR shows vaccines prevented COVID-19 related hospitalizations among the highest risk age groups. As cases, hospitalizations, and deaths rise, the data in today’s MMWR reinforce that COVID-19 vaccines are the best way to prevent COVID-19."

[johncolanduoni]

I have trouble seeing how “vaccination always offers stronger protection than getting the virus” could be equivalent to “getting the virus plus vaccination always offers stronger protection than getting the virus”. But anyway you made a clearer claim this time around:

> The argument being made is that because someone got infected with COVID, they should not need to get a vaccine because natural immunity provides better protection, which is clearly false per the CDC.

That link and the study it cited did not compare natural immunity to vaccine protection, since every participant had been previously infected with COVID. That is inherent in the fact that the study examined reinfection, and they are clear that the vaccination occurred after the original infection. You can not compare two populations when one of them does not exist in your study!

[mariodiana]

The tradeoff is always the benefit of getting vaccinated weighed against the potential harm of side-effects. The only strong claim made on behalf of the efficacy of the vaccines is that they will greatly reduce the vaccinated individual's chance of hospitalization and death. Those chances vary due to a number of factors, age and obesity being just two of the most important. An otherwise fit and healthy individual in his or her twenties or thirties already has a low chance of being hospitalized or dying. But, for the sake of argument, let's agree that the benefit outweighs the risk.

That benefit to risk ratio changes if that same young, fit, and healthy individual has already been infected with COVID-19. So, now what's the tradeoff? My original point is that in the current environment, there are some people who would rather not only that this not be discussed; some would rather that discussion—and perhaps even research into the question—be shut down.

Let's not pretend we're being governed by scientists. We're being governed by bureaucrats. No matter their credentials, the function of a bureaucrat is gaining compliance and expanding his or her department. That's what's behind calls for censorship.