If there has been enough study to be confident enough to strongly coerce most of the population to get the vaccines, how is it possible that results like this are still coming out and surprising people / creating contention? There are no other studies on this to even compare to?
The data from this study could not have come out earlier; we needed to wait until there were large enough samples infected with Delta to even know this.
But this study doesn't imply vaccines are not the right answer. It just says natural infection provides stronger immunity. What it leaves out is the price you pay to achieve natural immunity.
I find it disturbing how little information there is, and that the vaccines are being pushed incredibly strongly despite this. It seems to me that the science is not sufficiently explored.
>The data from this study could not have come out earlier; we needed to wait until there were large enough samples infected with Delta to even know this.
The situation should then be re-evaluated while studies are done
>But this study doesn't imply vaccines are not the right answer. It just says natural infection provides stronger immunity. What it leaves out is the price you pay to achieve natural immunity.
How can people be so sure that they are the right answer? You just admitted that the data is only just coming out to begin to study it. Delta has changed the situation significantly
The data on vaccine efficacy is not new. The data on relative immunity post disease course vs. vaccine is what's new. But when when choosing to vaccinate or get infected, one has to evaluate the cost of infection and vaccination.
The cost of vaccination is a day or so of malaise. The cost of infection is 10+ days of flu like symptoms, the possibility of hospitalization, the possibility of death and the possibility of long term morbidity. It's a pretty straight forward computation; vaccination has very low cost vs. natural disease course.
