[jat850]

It amazes me that there remains this misguided view that vaccination efficacy around protecting others is a binary mechanism. It's not. There is evidence of at least partial reduction in infection, not just outcome, by being vaccinated.

That's not including the nuanced aspect of it where being vaccinated reduces the severity and duration of symptomatic cases, which by nature reduces the likelihood simply based on time alone, of exposing others.

[jack_pp]

Parent said he has natural immunity, can you cite any evidence that you can get covid twice? If not then people who can prove natural immunity don't need the vaccine and are just risking their health for nothing.

[jat850]

If you want sources I will find them, but there are studied and not simply anecdotal instances of multiple infections of covid, yes. The outcomes range somewhat across the board from subsequent risks of severe infection or death, in a way that resembles vaccination.

[jack_pp]

It seems it is rare : https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfe... .

Also found a recent CDC study on this : https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm... .

However, from said study : "First, reinfection was not confirmed through whole genome sequencing, which would be necessary to definitively prove that the reinfection was caused from a distinct virus relative to the first infection. Although in some cases the repeat positive test could be indicative of prolonged viral shedding or failure to clear the initial viral infection (9), given the time between initial and subsequent positive molecular tests among participants in this study, reinfection is the most likely explanation"

Do with this as you will, but it seems there's nothing concrete. "most likely explanation" isn't good enough to force people to get an emergency use, rushed vaccine.

[sjg007]

Reinfection has been well established all over the place. You can identify it via PCR, you don't need to sequence it.

[jack_pp]

PCR has false positives. Also I came with sources, you didn't provide any.

[sjg007]

If you can’t research the scientific literature effectively, that’s on you.

[johnchristopher]

> It amazes me that there remains this misguided view that vaccination efficacy around protecting others is a binary mechanism. It's not. There is evidence of at least partial reduction in infection, not just outcome, by being vaccinated.

I do not understand if this argument is made in good faith or if it's covid deniers stirring shit up in the public debate or just rationalizing their fear of the syringe (yes, I know of 2 anti-vax who admitted it was their original reasons to refuse the vaccine).

[jat850]

I think with the majority of instances it's a matter of repeating what they've seen online somewhere, where it is nearly unilaterally presented in similar tone. Some cases are malicious intent I'm sure, but I wouldn't guess the most of them.

[mikem170]

Seems some people have a genuine difference in the way they asses their risk.

Some people are scared that there have been 800k+ deaths in the U.S. Others say that's only 1 in 400, mostly old and with commodities, and not that big a deal.

[sjg007]

The sophomoric response would be the trope that teenagers always think they are invincible and it won’t happen to me. I think some people never grow out of that phase.

There is also something called the normalcy bias which has an interplay with psychology and risk assessments.

Something like 1 in 400 can easily become 1 in 200. At what point does the majority notice and act appropriately?