[bastawhiz]

> But infected is way more protected than vaccinated only.

For the Pfizer vaccine, against the Delta variant specifically.

> If your position is that everyone should meet the highest standard of infected+vaccinated - which is only marginally better than just being infected - then we should be mandating mandatory covid infection. But if your position is that vaccination alone provides acceptable protection, then infection alone already far far surpasses that in both lasting immunity and total efficacy.

This is an absurd argument to make. There's no ethical argument to infect people. And the absolute material difference between vaccinated and natural immunity is literally dozens out of a population of over 600,000. Natural immunity might be "way more protected" but that's speaking in relative terms.

[rwcarlsen]

I agree it's absurd - which is why I wasn't sure why it sounded like you were making it. So since we established natural immunity is superior - why is it being ignored? Apparently it's not part of _the_ science.

[bastawhiz]

See my original comment: proving natural immunity requires money, the testing is slow, and it's still less good than simply also getting the shot. And even with natural immunity, it's only somewhat better in some cases as shown by a small number of studies. OR logic is not subtractive to the social and political problem, it's additive.

Why is it absurd to believe in natural immunity and still hold folks accountable for using the zero-cost, (virtually) zero risk option?