| HN Mirror

Claiming that some scientist or study stated something or other is not useful unless context is provided. At least it should be clear when it was said, since the position of science is subject to change as new data is available or the situation changes.

The quote that you probably refer to, is this one, from 3 Sep 2021 (translation by deepl):

"My goal as a virologist Drosten how I would like to become immune now is: I want to have a vaccine immunity and then saddling on top of that I definitely want to have my first general infection and the second and the third at some point. I have resigned myself to that for a long time. And then I know, I'm immune for a really long time and I'll only see this virus every few years, just like I see the other coronaviruses every now and then. As a relatively healthy adult, I can take responsibility for that. There are other populations that can't. But I can only answer for myself, for my own health, because I am now twice vaccinated. And I have to admit, I would also like to be vaccinated a third time."

On 9 Nov 2021, he's on the record with this (translation by deepl):

"One can debate whether one has grasped this correctly at the beginning. I think that the plan to work with two doses at the beginning was correct. Because what changed here was the virus. But now we just have to acknowledge, the vaccine is not specifically targeted to the delta virus, but to a virus that is not even circulating today. The virus has changed."

So definitely a preference for more than 2 shots and not suggesting that anyone do this, other than he himself, personally, given his specific risk profile. Is his stance on delta equally valid in light of the new omicron variant? Maybe, maybe not?

--- source: https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/info/coronaskript174.pdf