I don't mind going further I just don't want to bombard this message board with studies and information that isn't wanted here. Honestly my main point isn't that Natural Immunity from Covid is much better than the vaccine. Its that it's at worst very comparable. In order to make that point I am using a massive study from a country that frankly has far better data on this then we do, because the CDC in our country decided that it was no longer important to track breakthrough infections, which is mind boggling when we are trying to take a scientific approach to this.
Im not going to go point by point to defend this study because it won't go anywhere if I do.
Lets just keep it simple and say they took tens of thousands of people from 3 groups and then compared their tests over time.
1 group was people who were fully vaccinated but had no prior covid infection. A 2nd group had been previously infected but had not been vaccinated. A third group had been infected and received one dose of the vaccine.
They then looked at the test results from each group and what they found was that the 2 previously infected groups ALWAYS had far less positive tests, symptomatic cases and hospitalizations then the fully vaccinated group that had no prior infection.
What they also found was that the prior infected groups immunity also held up for much longer then the fully vaccinated group whose immunity waned much quicker so this advantage in protection became even more dramatic as more time passed.
Maybe it's the genetic makeup of Jewish people... Or maybe it's a fake news story, or there were massive flaws as many of you are desperately claiming. But I don't believe that's the case and you do. I don't think we will change each other's minds on this.
I will just stick to my main point which is that people with natural immunity should be treated at worst equal in terms of freedoms as people who are vaccinated. Because it is highly unlikely given what we have always known about natural immunity that (once acquired) it does provide strong immunity. .
First, I think it is important to discuss the evidence behind it because that is where the proof lies in supporting an argument. This board should be a place for us to bicker and push each other's points to test them to see if they stand up. It's going to be uncomfortable but that's part of the process at times. I'm fine with debating and going back and forth. That said, it's ok, though, we can pivot off of that because I agree we are probably not going to agree here, which is fine. No point in beating a dead horse in that respect. I've been suspect of preprints and that likely is going to change anytime soon. We'll leave it there.
However, if you want to pivot to the next step, we can pivot to should people with natural immunity be treated less than equal in terms of freedom as those who are vaccinated. I'm going to say they should still be treated unequally and am going out on a limb here with some bias but bear with me.
Basically, businesses are the ones assuming the risk and they have a right to determine what they will let in their work place. The time and resources, I argue are irreplaceable in a competitive market. It takes 6 months to 2 years to develop talent and business owners assuming that risk, have an absolute right to ensure they do not lose a competitive edge by having higher turn over because of an unsafe work place. Because then they end up closing the doors. While the data is something we will disagree on, I think we can both agree that having employees with maximum immunity on top of natural immunity is going to ensure that they don't lose employees d/t sickness. As much as it is their right to determine the environment in which people work, people also have the right to not work there and go to a competitor.
The same goes for restaurants, public transportation etc. People have a right to not get sick d/t risk and yes even though it is a lower risk than unvaccinated, then those who do not want to get vaccinated, regardless of prior infection or possible infection can go elsewhere because the other half of society already assumed the burden of getting vaccinated and are now carrying those that did not get the vaccine. Moreover, by not creating a safe environment, then business will also be open to liability to pay for medical expenses and expensive lawsuits for those that do get sick since now the vaccine has been given FDA approval. They are going to choose to not go that route.
Life Insurance costs should be higher for unvaccinated individuals. Because the insurance is something that is based on risk, they are going to want to maximize their risk to benefit ratio. Because they have liability involved and will be paying out significantly, then they have a right to set their own rates. If they are banned from doing so, then it is just government price fixing. Unless, we want to go to a single flat rate insurance for everyone, I don't see that happening.
Really, this is the free hand of the market in a odd way coming into play and people are going to regulate it d/t risk, cost and liability. It always comes down to money and safety. Even if the data is questionable at worst, no one is going to want to risk it with a better option out there. While it is unpopular with some and possibly discriminatory, I acknowledge it as a choice that people are going to make with their wallets to keep their business and households alive and going.
I can expand on health insurance costs to under the same as life insurance if needed, but that's enough for now. I'm going to go to bed, just got off my 3rd night shift and will check later today/tomorrow. Let me know what you think. Take care.
Best. PM
