Hacker News Reader

Comment by a3n | Hacker News Reader

But, only if you survive, right?

The relevancy is mostly for the decisions on what status to give people that had it. E.g. do you treat proof of a past infection as equal to vaccinated status? For how long? how do you handle boosters for them? ... (E.g. in here in Germany an infection that's 1-6 months ago is in many ways treated the same as being vaccinated, after 6 months a single booster shot gives vaccinated status (based on results that at that point a booster helps improve immunity). These policies and how to adjust them depend on such results)

Well, there's relevancey from a public health point of view, and then there's relevancey from anti-vaxxers point of view.

And the anti-vaxxers are going to say, might as well get the covid, I'll have better immunity than the vaccinated.

Even though, by getting infected, they're going to infect other people! Which doesn't happen as a result of getting vaccinated.

Yes, you also have to suffer being sick which can be very bad even if it doesn't kill you.

It's a sign of the weird conversations going on in our times that Science Magazine feels the need remind people that getting sick is bad in the title of this article.

Survival rate for 20-49 is 99.98% according to the CDC.

.2% in that age range in the US is a few hundred thousand people. But whatevs right?

.02% of the entire US population is less than 66k.

And are those the only people worth worrying about?

For the typical anti-vaxxer, at least the ones calling attention to themselves as anti-vaxxers, the only people that matter are "me."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com