This seems stunningly wrongheaded. It vastly overstates what actual officials are saying. And it seems to buy into the idea that lack of trust in public health officials in driven by evolving knowledge about natural immunity. It also ignores the ... washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/0…
2/ that as a public health matter there are pretty obvious reasons why we don't want to leave it to people to opt out of vaccination because they claim they had COVID. It also overstates what the available data says about there being no additional protection provided ...
3/ by vaccination. If it wasn't by a very legitimate expert in the field I would say it amounts to concern-trolling. Seems wrong and off base on almost every count.
4/ I was particularly struck by this sentence. The author writes that emerging data about natural immunity (which isn't that new or surprising) should help "transitioning from an overly rigid to a more flexible vaccine requirement policy." This implies the country ...
5/ needs to move off some draconian policy which has been in place for some time when in fact the policy he's referring to was announced a couple weeks and isn't even in effect yet. How can we have an "overly rigid" vaccine requirement policy when we literally have ...
6/ requirement policy at all? That's just weird. My understanding of the available data is that immunity from prior infection is probably fairly robust. We don't know exactly how longstanding and we don't really have enough data to say definitively that the vaccine doesnt ...
7/ heighten your immunity. But I would think the great majority of people would want to get the vaccine any way since it can backstop whatever uncertainty there is about whether you had covid, how enduring natural immunity is etc. The premise here seems to be to ...
8/ add weight to the idea that the vaccine is some scary dangerous thing that you should avoid if you can. There's no evidence for that. A good and science based approach seems to be that if you've had COVID you are probably immunized to a significant degree but that ...
9/ because of uncertainty it makes sense to get vaccinated too. That actually IS most of the guidance I've seen. The government also has a strong interest in not litigating every single case of somehow who claims they had COVID in April 2020 but doesn't have proof of it.
10/ Final point: he claims that "thousands" died because we vaccinated people who had already gotten COVID. That's really a highly speculative and intentionally inflammatory claim.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
