That has always made sense to me. Have people argued the opposite?
Think about it. If you catch COVID your immune system is going to be hammered by exposure to the virus for 1-2 weeks. Which gives it a LOT Of time to get boosted up. Whereas if you get the vaccine you are just getting a one-time boost of virus-like material that your body thinks is the actual virus. It stands to reason that actually catching COVID will give you as good or better immunity.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't' survive that first infection of COVID which is the problem. IF COVID wasn't potentially deadly then no one would care about immunity in the first place.
When the vaccines were being pushed so hard, a lot of people were asking if it was necessary to get the vaccine if a person had already had Covid. Oddly, none of the leading policy makers at the time seemed to have the answer to that question.
Honestly they probably could have treated a positive COVID test result as equivalent to a vaccine shot. Present one or the other as documentation.
But it would have to be a clinic-administered COVID test not some home test if you wanted to actually be able to verify and not just have people fake it or lie about having had COVID.
The whole public health objective to vaccine campaigns is to reduce the R value of the virus to well below 1.0 so that it dies out. Which you accomplish by reducing the number of vectors it has to multiply by either (1) boosting the immunity of the population as much as possible, or (2) implementing other measures like social distancing and masking. So you need to make sure that people out walking around in public actually are immune and not just faking it or lying about it.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
That has always made sense to me. Have people argued the opposite?
Think about it. If you catch COVID your immune system is going to be hammered by exposure to the virus for 1-2 weeks. Which gives it a LOT Of time to get boosted up. Whereas if you get the vaccine you are just getting a one-time boost of virus-like material that your body thinks is the actual virus. It stands to reason that actually catching COVID will give you as good or better immunity.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don't' survive that first infection of COVID which is the problem. IF COVID wasn't potentially deadly then no one would care about immunity in the first place.
When the vaccines were being pushed so hard, a lot of people were asking if it was necessary to get the vaccine if a person had already had Covid. Oddly, none of the leading policy makers at the time seemed to have the answer to that question.
Honestly they probably could have treated a positive COVID test result as equivalent to a vaccine shot. Present one or the other as documentation.
Do you remember any of the leading policy makers at the time advocating for that? I don't. Why not, is the big question.
GaryK wrote: ↑Fri Feb 17, 2023 2:00 pm
When the vaccines were being pushed so hard, a lot of people were asking if it was necessary to get the vaccine if a person had already had Covid. Oddly, none of the leading policy makers at the time seemed to have the answer to that question.
Honestly they probably could have treated a positive COVID test result as equivalent to a vaccine shot. Present one or the other as documentation.
Do you remember any of the leading policy makers at the time advocating for that? I don't. Why not, is the big question.
Yeah, I don't know. I wasn't in any internal agency discussions about that sort of thing.
I would imagine that one argument against such an approach is that they didn't want people to deliberately infect themselves in order to avoid getting vaccinated. Which would have made things worse. And probably also didn't want to give oxygen to anti-vaccine campaigns. But yeah, I have no idea.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
