[tdfx]

> Since then, tdfx and others have been launching a barrage of red herrings to somehow undermine and misdirect away from this correct point

The original point is an interesting example of being correct, but also misleading in that it paints getting the vaccine after natural infection as the best course of action. It has benefits, but probably not as many immune benefits as having a second asymptomatic infection after the original one.

I'm not anti-vaccine at all, but the CDC presents the vaccine to everyone in every circumstance as the optimal course of action and it's very clear the science on that is not settled. Blanket statements and their inability to acknowledge edge cases are the reason their credibility has been so badly eroded in the past few years. In their quest not to give anti-vax people a thread to pull on, they've treated the public as too stupid to understand nuance and created an even larger distrust than they would've had to begin with.

[civilized]

> The original point is an interesting example of being correct, but also misleading in that it paints getting the vaccine after natural infection as the best course of action. It has benefits, but probably not as many immune benefits as having a second asymptomatic infection after the original one.

It makes no sense to compare getting the vaccine to getting a second asymptomatic infection. It is impossible to control the level of symptoms you get from a natural infection.

[xenonite]

Similarly, vaccination does not seem to control the symptoms after vaccination. Some people react asymptomatic, some are several weeks bedridden, and some get even stronger reactions. Some get many antibodies after vaccination, some only few, vanishing rapidly. It’s a much more fine-grained analysis that is necessary, in my opinion.