- The amount of protection from "natural immunity" is unclear.
- The amount of protection from the vaccine is more clear and more controlled.
Eh... both are based on statistical inference. None is "clearer" than the other.
The "catch" is that reserach is much more prominent on the vaccines, for whatever reason.
- Vaccination increases protection even if you’ve already had COVID-19 and have "natural immunity."
- Vaccination appears to offer more protection than "natural immunity."
Same for those figures.
And I can't see any scientific basis as to why the direct contagion (the actual disease, after recovery) would give me
less protection than the vaccine.
If anyone can explain this one to me, please do. I'm really curious about this one.
- The vaccine is not "experimental," nor is it "palliative."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html
This is false though. Most of them are indeed experimental.
We're definitely being used as test subjects, particularly for mRNA and some of the Adenovirus vaccines.
It is understandable, however, given the situation and how contagious the whole thing is.
A lot of people who were taking unrelated drugs, like HCQ and Ivermectin were being used as test subjects as well, though with a much smaller risk, considering the substances, their pharmacokinetics and their side effects are widely known, unlike those of the new vaccination methods.
Attenuated vaccines (mostly the Chinese ones) are the closest to the "classic" vaccination approach, and they were the only ones I would be willing to take, if I were to take any of them at some point.
I got a pretty severe case of CoViD-19 back in March, and I really don't want me (or anyone else) to get it (again), but, not even accounting for the wild conspiracy theories, I'm not willing to be a test subject for a new vaccination method with completely unforeseen long term consequences.
I respect those that do get vaccinated, and wish they'd respect my decision not to be vaccinated in turn :/