[ifyoubuildit]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2108120

This is evidence that it does matter. That the unvaccinated as a whole are some outsized threat to everyone is misleading at best. The subset of the unvaccinated that are seronaive are more likely to take up hospital beds, that seems to be true. The unvaccinated with a prior infection are not.

This is important because the general populace has been whipped up into a frenzy and pointed roughly in the direction of myself and people like me, who are not an issue. With asshats like Macron stirring the pot like this, its leading us to a scary place, and its all for political points.

[trinovantes]

You're citing old data that doesn't even include delta or omnicron

> Primary infection was defined as the first PCR-positive swab. Reinfection was defined as the first PCR-positive swab obtained at least 90 days after the primary infection.

Many people can also be asymptomatic and may not bother getting a PCR test for their first infection. When their reinfection requires an ICU bed, would they be counted as primary infection or reinfection?

Also what is the point of making this distinction? Every antivaxer will need to infected at least once to build immunity. Are we supposed to purposely infect the unvaxed for them to build immunity (i.e. exactly what a vaccine is supposed to do)? And if they're unvaxed primary infection, we're back to where we started, as you said, they're the main cause of ICU capacity.

[ifyoubuildit]

> You're citing old data that doesn't even include delta or omnicron

Do you have anything showing the counterpoint? I'm very interested in seeing it if you do.

The point of making this distinction is that hundreds of millions of people have already been infected and shouldn't be hounded and harassed by people yo take a vaccine if they don't want it.

If you want me to worry that unvaccinated people with a prior infection are clogging up ICUs, show me evidence that its actually happening and I'd be happy to get on board.

[trinovantes]

You're asking for impossible data. There's not enough testing capacity and data collection to determine if an unvaxxed person in the ICU truly has a prior infection.

And what do you think we do to distinguish between the supposedly two distinct groups of antivaxxers? Should they carry a blood test or antibody passport? Even if they're no longer a threat to ICUs doesn't negate the fact that at one point in time they were a threat.

[ifyoubuildit]

> You're asking for impossible data

If something is difficult for you to justify, does that mean you shouldn't have to justify it?

Anwyay, we knew that reinfections were rare up through delta (even the CDC acknowledges this on their website, and there are plenty of studies to back this up). Given that, it should be safe to assume that ICU visits as a result of a rare reinfection are even rarer.

> And what do you think we do to distinguish between the supposedly two distinct groups of antivaxxers?

For data collection? We shouldn't need to because of the logic above. But if you wanted to confirm, it should be possible to study this by following up on ICU patients using all the various test result databases and following up with the ones who survive.

As for passports and really all of this covid fallout, my overly optimistic hope is that natural immunity will continue to hold, everyone will have had it after omicron finishes, and everyone will be able to empathize with each other when there isn't as much fear and division between the "clean vaccine takers" and the unclean infected (plague rats, covidiots, antivaxxers, Herman Cain awards, whatever other handy slurs people have come up with).

Of course, realistically, this shit (our behaviors) will all be with us for decades to come. Once you spend enough resources on getting people to think and feel a certain way, good luck reversing it.

I think you (and everyone else) should throw away the term antivaxxer, and say specifically what you mean.

I think seronaive is a reasonable term for the unvaccinated and never infected. Recovered is good for those with a prior infection, if you actially need to distinguish based on their vaccine status, then do that: say recovered with or without x number of shots. Anti mandate, anti mask, anti lockdown, these are all things that can exist on their own that everyone lumps into "antivax". We should just say what we mean if we actually want to communicate with each other rather than play tribal politics. How hard is it to use a few extra words?

[trinovantes]

> If something is difficult for you to justify, does that mean you shouldn't have to justify it?

The burden of proof is on you as you made the original claim that recovered patients don't go into the ICU. I simply pointed out any data that backs up this claim is biased as it's impossible to know accurately distinguish recovered and first cases as people don't just randomly get tested, especially if they're asymptomatic. In addition, there's not enough PCR testing capacity so even if they want to get tested, they may not be able to.

The only data we can accurately know is the the ratio of vaccinated/partial/unvaccinated in the ICU because everybody that gets vaccinated is recorded in a database.

> I think you (and everyone else) should throw away the term antivaxxer, and say specifically what you mean

You're right, I should just call them selfish assholes. I don't know about you but it's hard to empathize with people that would rather let cancer patients metastasize while hoping their seronaive to recovered gamble works out than take a jab.

[ifyoubuildit]

Hey, I get it, this is an emotional topic and it's been a rough two years for everyone. I wish you all the best and I'm going to leave this thread here.