The argument that is being made by the article is "natural immunity is better than vaccine acquired immunity because unvaccinated and previously infected people get hospitalized when they are reinfected less often, so vaccine mandates are bad" - and my point is - that's an absurd comparison, because you're not comparing apples to apples. The people who are the most likely to end up in the hospital in both populations (65+, multiple comorbidities), are also the most likely to die when they are unvaccinated _the first time_.
A more accurate way to frame that would be, "If you don't die from covid because you are unvaccinated, you are less likely to end up in the hospital the second time you have it, compared to people who never had it and didn't die but did get a shot" - and we would then compare the absolute mortality rate for unvaccinated individuals and vaccinated and see the obvious numbers that vaccinated people are less likely to die. It invalidates the argument in the article.
The argument that is being made by the article is "natural immunity is better than vaccine acquired immunity because unvaccinated and previously infected people get hospitalized when they are reinfected less often, so vaccine mandates are bad"
I don't think that's the author's argument though. Their goal doesn't seem to be to pit the two types of immunity against each other and declare one a winner (just look at the title, and quotes like these: Can the case be any clearer, simultaneously, for both the efficacy of vaccines and natural immunity?)
The point is that in large part, a mandate would be imposed on people who already were infected, and these people won't benefit (much anyway), and neither will the vaccinated as a result.
If this was published early pandemic and the article was saying "no mandates, everyone should just get infected", I think your point would stand. But at this stage, there just wouldn't be that much benefit gained by forcing a largely convalescent population to get the shots, and you'd be incurring a heavy cost politically and ethically.
Comments
The argument that is being made by the article is "natural immunity is better than vaccine acquired immunity because unvaccinated and previously infected people get hospitalized when they are reinfected less often, so vaccine mandates are bad" - and my point is - that's an absurd comparison, because you're not comparing apples to apples. The people who are the most likely to end up in the hospital in both populations (65+, multiple comorbidities), are also the most likely to die when they are unvaccinated _the first time_.
A more accurate way to frame that would be, "If you don't die from covid because you are unvaccinated, you are less likely to end up in the hospital the second time you have it, compared to people who never had it and didn't die but did get a shot" - and we would then compare the absolute mortality rate for unvaccinated individuals and vaccinated and see the obvious numbers that vaccinated people are less likely to die. It invalidates the argument in the article.
Thanks for clarifying.
I don't think that's the author's argument though. Their goal doesn't seem to be to pit the two types of immunity against each other and declare one a winner (just look at the title, and quotes like these: Can the case be any clearer, simultaneously, for both the efficacy of vaccines and natural immunity?)
The point is that in large part, a mandate would be imposed on people who already were infected, and these people won't benefit (much anyway), and neither will the vaccinated as a result.
If this was published early pandemic and the article was saying "no mandates, everyone should just get infected", I think your point would stand. But at this stage, there just wouldn't be that much benefit gained by forcing a largely convalescent population to get the shots, and you'd be incurring a heavy cost politically and ethically.