Hacker News Reader

I agree it's absurd - which is why I wasn't sure why it sounded like you were making it. So since we established natural immunity is superior - why is it being ignored? Apparently it's not part of _the_ science.

View on HN

See my original comment: proving natural immunity requires money, the testing is slow, and it's still less good than simply also getting the shot. And even with natural immunity, it's only somewhat better in some cases as shown by a small number of studies. OR logic is not subtractive to the social and political problem, it's additive.

Why is it absurd to believe in natural immunity and still hold folks accountable for using the zero-cost, (virtually) zero risk option?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com