It seems bizarre to me you wouldn't put requirements up front, which seems to be what this thread is complaining about. Thank you for implying I am a moron
Well, you are a moron for refusing a free vaccine that significantly reduces chance of getting covid, AND lessens severity of ailments if you do get it.
Maybe a year ago you could make a comment like that when everyone was locked down but the vaccines don't work anymore for the current variant. Common sense needs to be updated
There's millions of people that have already been infected with COVID and receive no calculable benefit from taking a vaccine. While the vaccine has been proven to be safe and effective, there are rare side effects that some people might not want to expose themselves to for no reason. Springing that blanket requirement on people at the end of the hiring process is a shitty move.
I really wish people would read their sources, and specifically with the CDC, read the sources the CDC is using. The CDC page you referenced uses https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm as its only source for this recommendation.
The study monitors outcomes for a group that were all infected at some point in 2020. The vaccine was released at the end of 2020. The study monitors the infection status of these people in May-June 2021. It's purposefully selecting people who had no recent exposure via natural infection and comparing them to people that recently had the vaccine. I don't know how they can use this to support their recommendation with a straight face.
I don't understand your point. People who say "I don't need the vaccine because I already had COVID" never qualify that with how recent their natural infection was. Many of them assume that having it once is forever enough, like with chickenpox. The study shows that this common belief is wrong.
Neither the vaccine or infection will protect against reinfection indefinitely. That much I believe everyone is in agreement with. If you had natural infection or the vaccine a year ago or more, you will likely be reinfected with the most recent strain, typically with mild or no symptoms. My point about the study was that it specifically selecting people who were recently vaccinated vs. people whose natural exposure was the prior year. Of course the vaccinated people whose immune systems were recently exposed to the spike protein had lower reinfection rates.
That's why taking the vaccine is valuable! It provides protection, even to those who have had COVID before! Even if you had it last year, you can protect yourself by taking the vaccine! That's what the study shows! Just because you think it's obvious doesn't mean the study isn't valuable!
The post that started this chain said there were significant benefits to vaccine after infection. That post was correct. Since then, tdfx and others have been launching a barrage of red herrings to somehow undermine and misdirect away from this correct point, rather than simply acknowledging it and moving on to whatever they actually want to say.
If you don't want to be required to take the vaccine, we can have that conversation, but enough spouting nonsense to cast doubt on a correct point.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
each time you are exposed via vaccine or getting infected, it builds immunity.
Getting exposed turns out to be similar to having gotten one shot, though Im sure the immune response has a wider antigen coverage.
Keep in mind that getting infected has a substantially higher risk of bad outcomes than getting the vaccine. Getting the vaccine substantially reduces the risk of bad outcomes.
Getting infected then getting the vaccine is not as good as getting vaccinated then getting infected.
Also getting infected likely makes you completely immune to that variant. But getting vaccines/boosters likely gives you stronger partial immunity to mutated variants.
Each time you get a vaccine you suppress a part of your body that would naturally react. You won't over react to covid but you will also not react in a natural way like previously. What does this mean We will find out in 2024 when the first longterm studies are due out.
