Should we just allow stupid people to die off. . .?

Oh, sure. I forgot to include intravenous drug users and then those poor truly unfortunate souls who received a blood transfusion from an HIV positive donor.

The former "we" can also not treat. The latter we will.

Nice work jumping to "bigoted". What a joke. How would it be bigoted? Does your stat indicate that the vast majority of AIDS patients in the US are from a population that is a small minority in the country? And that less than a quarter of cases in the country are from a population that is a gigantic majority? Unsure how that proves some sort of bigoted intent. Seems pretty certain that this would make gay sex obviously and scientifically one of the most dangerous activities in terms of contracting HIV and developing AIDs.

I like that you're embracing the anti-science, woke ideology. Pretty much openly at this point. Facts don't matter when somebody might get offended.

...or K-Stu, or Stu-Cuck....

Up to a point.

I'm aware of numerous pieces of evidence showing comparable protection from infection, seriousness and transmissibility between natural and induced immune response.

Both are limited in time, though, and as far as I'm aware there's still considerable uncertainty over that. Another factor to consider is the growing body of evidence regarding long effects from C19 even amongst those not unfuly affected by thrir own infection.

Given the remarkably low risk from vaccination, and the evident high risk (holistic risk not necessarily personal ill-effect) from C19, I'd suggest getting vaccinated where offered is a sensible choice.

I still don't get what your position is.

You say research in both the vaccine efficacy and natural immunity are limited in time. Sure. In that limited time, studies show both are highly effective in preventing infection. The natural immunity is less limited than the vaccine in terms of time. Obviously, this is because infections have been happening for much longer than vaccines have.

But you seem to be accepting that, as far as we know, natural immunity and vaccine immunity are equally effective, and yet still fall back on the universal idea that getting vaccinated where offered is sensible.

But if the risk of long term effects exist at all with the vaccine, and the recovered person has the same protection vaccinated or not, why would taking the risk of vaccine be sensible? You are adding a risk with no benefit under those assumptions.

And then there is the selfishness of someone, in a region where vaccines are scarce, taking a vaccine when they already had natural immunity, that could have been given to someone who didn't have such natural immunity.

Most type 1 people are on insulin, myself included.

A minority of Type 2 are on insulin. Depending on your population they may outnumber the T1 prickers. They certainly outweigh them.

The length of the immunity is more certain for natural infection than for vaccines. This is because, like I said, natural infection has been around much longer. I don't get how someone can argue "well, you don't know how long natural immunity lasts", while simultaneously arguing that this is why you should get a vaccine, that has the exact same unknown, but to a greater degree. The latest study I saw for natural infection (which was admittedly a month or more ago) said at least 9 months, but because people were still showing high levels of immunity at 9 months (which was the longest term data they had) the expectation is it doesn't just plummet to nothing suddenly.



Well, I have never seen evidence that natural immunity or vaccines differ on any of the known variants to the extent that someone wouldn't be protected from either one.