Of Freedom, Country and Vaccination

[TXBamanut]

The EU-COVID pass works with a similar system. Vaccinated and fully recovered people have equal status. Difference is that the recovered status applies for six months. Vaccinated for one year. Recent studies and the impact of Delta indicate that different expiring dates aren´t necessary.

In the end the important question is. Immunity or no immunity. Vaccine data is easy to track. Previous infections can be tracked but we would miss a lot of asymptomatic cases. With the lack of knowledge about the virus we aren´t able to come up with a specific antibody treshold that could be used to verify the status. Research is on the way but it is possible that we will never get the required information from antibody tests because immune response is more complicated than a simple...antibodies/no antibodies.
A potential risk is the amount of people  that isn´t mounting a systematic antibody response. Especially in case of a low viral load, mild cases or no symptoms Also a possiblity when it comes to the vaccine. But less likely.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/9/21-1042_article

But. Just like in many COVID related discussions it isn´t a one or the other situation. For fully recovered the best option is to have BOTH natural immunity and the vaccine (even mentioned in the study from Israel that @"TXBamanut" posted). Even learned something new. I thought the German/French guideline to give only one dose is the international standard. Based on the current data only one shot of mRNA vaccines is enough for previously infected. Additional shots did not lead to significant higher antibody numbers.

Otherwise the order is still the same. VACCINE > NO VACCINE. Not sure why any (even super healthy athlet) would risk the infection just to get natural immunity. The risk/reward calculation isn´t adding up.

I liked your post, but I will point out, that you are slightly misreading an important part of almost every study that I've posted that has shown natural immunity is greater (the data from the studies are really strong on that).  Each one that recommended the vaccine had that under the caveat of "more study".  They weren't saying that 100% the vaccine plus immunity acquired from the virus is the end all, but saying that they were advocating for more study on natural immunity being both lasting and better because they felt their study showed that there was something there to that.

So that's different than a blanket statement of vaccinated > unvaccinated, because that's not what the studies and those that did them said.  The truth is that many of them believe we should be studying immunity acquired by virus and peer reviewing the studies that are there to confirm what their findings have shown because it could take helps end the pandemic status of COVID.

That's all.