There are studies comparing the protection offered by vaccination vs natural infection, so there's no need to draw conclusions from a single anecdote. Obviously when you're just looking at a single case the results will be dominated by behaviour and luck around exposure, not the degree of immunity.
I would have added some data points to your original comment, but then mods deleted your comment while I typed. Seems they've got to suppress single anecdotes so no one has the bravery to add a second.
> , so there's no need to draw conclusions from a single anecdote
In the meantime we are still waiting for the raw data to be made public about Pfizer's vaccine trials. Strange that we can inject billions on people on Earth yet nobody apart from a selected few were allowed to see that.
Didn't the FDA release like 60k pages of those documents a couple months ago? I know Pfizer didn't want that, but people are forgetting before COVID mRNA medicine was a holy grail. So much so a lot of groups didn't pursue it since they saw it as a pipe dream. COVID's greatest gift was causing massive influxes of research dollars into them and most likely fast tracking these new drugs 15 years. mRna will literally be part of the new wave of medicine starting that will cure cancer. And it's odd to you that Pfizer doesn't want to post all their research data online? With the FDA or CDC they can be assured of data containment.
And let's be honest....an mRNA vaccine has some fats, sugars, and salts in it. The magic is in the programming to work with your body and it's immune system. I've heard some insane personalized interpretations of basic organic chemistry on the vaccine topic before (please know not saying you, referencing past discussions with others) about how vaccines loaded with poisons and caused all kinds of issues. And with an mRNA vaccine's ingredient list reading like an organic snack know what all those people said instead? An mRNA vaccine will alter your DNA because youtube told them so.
These are also the people that said they understood Particle Physics better then myself or any source I cited, because I was too full of myself to acknowledge that when I said non-ionizing radiation I was ignoring the radiation part...which is how 5G was the true cause of COVID19. Then they told me I was a poster boy for what education does to someone....because I lacked the common sense to recognize the dangers of the radiation part in non-ionizing radiation. Never mind he was arguing with me surrounded by technology saturating him with that very same harmless radiation.
I told those examples to make a point...releasing all of that data won't change the first person's mind. They'll simply shift their position or do like they did with the whole autism debate and say they're right and anything saying differently is obviously part of a larger conspiracy of people who don't care about patient health. Over 20,000 people are hospitalized and 3,000 dead every year from aspirin due to anaphylaxis or bleeds. That's not really reported because anyone who expects every single human on the planet to have zero negative reaction to a drug every time is setting unrealistic expectations as a cheap way to try to prove their right. We've had roughly (last time I checked several months ago) a couple of dozen verified deaths relating to the vaccine since roll out and all those had genetic conditions that caused it.
Point is, every scrap of that data can hit the net tonight and the only thing that would change is we'd wake up to the new laughable "they are using it to track you" or "It's going to force gender change in men!" rumors tomorrow. Meaning, 99% of the people who'd (skim) read that data are the kind of people who'd tell me I was a moron because I wasn't getting that non-ionizing radiation is still radiation and is nuking us all.
Even people not in vulnerable groups still die or suffer long term effects at a higher rate from covid if unvaccinated than they do from the vaccine. Both rates are very low, but why pick the worse one?
Right, of course. I guess I mean for a given individual (who can’t change their immune system), the poster seemed to imply that the choice to be vaccinated was neutral or negative.
For a person with a healthy immune system the choice to be vaccinated is neutral or negative. This includes non-immunocompromised people under the age of 65.
