And therein lies the rub !

The hidden life of a GP: angry patients, anti-vaxxers, extreme goodwill and exhaustion

A long read but lots of useful info that you might not otherwise think about.

He quoting from the CDC's own research. Criticise him all you wish, but do try to do so credibly.

He is presenting it. The experts at the CDC were responsible for the research.

I fully understand that. But, as can be seen, there is now lots of evidence that the unvaxxed that have had it and survived, are just as well protected as the vaxxed. That being the case, the them v us (unvaxxed v vaxxed) debate is going to have to become far more nuanced.

Sorry, I don’t particularly care what an incompetent former nurse who likes to spread disinformation quotes. Is he misquoting? Is he selectively picking out misleading bits? If you wanted to make a point using CDC’s “own research” you could have done just that.

I see you that elect to play the man, rather than the ball.

Is this chap qualified enough for you?

I'm reading your view as allow those choose to be unvaxxed to gamble their life/health, because the surviors will have natural immunity similar to those with vaccine immunity. And on this strain, most will indeed survive.

Nuances: hospital staff will bear the unecessary burden (including illness/death) of the unvaxxed; poorly informed individuals will regard vaccine refusal as a reasonable choice; should a more severe strain of virus emerge the inertia of the unvaxxed will be more difficult to difficult to break.

I am not saying that at all. What I am saying, and I have been for some time as the data has been available for the world to see, is that jurisdictions cannot lump all of the vaxxed into one group, all of the unvaxxed into another group and state that one is in a better position than the other. Clearly, those that have survived infection (whether vaxxed or unvaxxed) are in a far better place to deal with future infection than those that have been vaxxed and not been infected. So, for example, Australia's recent conduct with Djokovic isn't based on science at all (I accept that they have jurisdiction to impose any conditions they wish to upon those visiting their country) just as insisting that all passengers on aeroplanes being vaxxed doesn't reflect the data that those unvaxxed but infected, are different risks to the population.

I'd respectfully suggest that those that have not received the vaccine at this time are unlikely to do so in the future, irrespective of what jurisdictions impose. Likewise, I anticipate that those that are unvaxxed and have been infected, will be able to argue against any level of mandates that require vaccination relatively easily. Courts tend to be swayed by evidence, not morals, and the evidence is now against such mandates. As many experts in the field have been stating for some time.

Should a more severe strain emerge, I am confident that the vaccinated will be in a very similar position to those unvaxxed and infected. In fact, one could argue that the latter are in a better position than the former due to the benefits that natural immunity confers over vaccinated immunity.

The data is clear that those that are unvaxxed have a higher severe illness rate and death rate than the vaxxed. You accept that, right?

It's not useful the bring the Djokovic controversey into it, far too much politics involved.

I accept that the unvaccinated and not infected have a higher severe illness rate and death rate than the vaccinated and not infected.

As you will note from the data, the unvaccinated and infected, the vaccinated/not infected, and the vaccinated and infected, have very similar severe illness rate, death rates with the latter having slightly more favourable outcomes than the previous two groups. You accept that too, right?

I accept that the vaccine has been a good thing. However, it has not been the magic bullet it was hoped it would be and, if one survives an infection, the natural immunity provides as good, and a longer lasting, benefit than vaccines alone, just as many epidemiologists stated would likely be the case.

Perzactly!

No, I just don’t tend to waste time on listening to discredited sources. Is your second link to this guy who was forced to resign due to unprofessional conduct? https://doctors.cpso.on.ca/DoctorDet.../0048643-62621

Re-stating;

Amongst the never infected the the unvaxxed suffer higher illness/death than the vaxed.

Amongst the unvaxxed recovered, their new natural immunity appears to be at least equal to those who have been vaccinated. (Yes, that's in line with what I have heard in recent days).

The magic bullet comment does not follow from the above. First of all, vaccines are never "magic bullets" they are a means to reduce spread in a population. Second, had there been no vaccine, the numbers of illness/death would be far higher than they are (first statement). What we can say (consistent with my earlier post) is that those that gamble their health and burden the hospitals through their rejection of a vaccine, should benefit from decent immunity if they survive. I accept that natural immunity for unvaxxed survivors is better than low immunity for unvaxxed survivors, but in consideration of the non-survivors and the impact on healthcare, I don't see it as something to be celebrated or promoted.

That reminds me of someone i used to work with. Occupational Health would fairly frequently summon her for a polio vacinne and would need some persuading that she didn't need one as she had had polio as a child.

I note that you have not pointed to anything they have stated with which you disagree in those videos. I suggest you review the source material yourself and let us know if you disagree with what those two have stated.