When COVID-19 is endemic, what's the role of testing? - "Ryan Westergaard, state epidemiologist for communicable diseases with the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, said COVID-19 testing is "still very important" but added that "it's important in different ways than it was two years ago." There are three reasons why testing is still needed, he said. First, in order to receive antiviral medications – such as Plaxlovid – to treat COVID-19, infection by the virus has to be proven in a patient... a second reason to maintain testing is "to support our awareness of what the epidemic is doing and the general epidemiology," meaning the locations and rate that the virus is spreading... Lastly, Westergaard said testing is needed to keep track of how the virus is mutating and changing... as the endemic phase of living with COVID-19 continues, testing will increasingly become most important for those who have the greatest risk of developing serious or deadly complications from infection."
From July 2022. Naturally, in January 2023, I still see covid hystericists panicking over being exposed to covid-positive
COVID: Experts question Canada's China travel restrictions - "Canada's requirement of a negative COVID-19 test of travellers from China will not help in preventing new variants or the spread of the virus, say experts. Kerry Bowman, assistant professor at the University of Toronto's Temerty Faculty of Medicine, called the requirement "absolutely a political move, and not based on science at this point." "This isn't the early days of the pandemic,” he said. “So, I do think it's largely political." The federal government said Saturday that people coming from China, Hong Kong and Macao will have to test negative for COVID-19 before leaving for Canada... "But it's pretty clear that point of entry screening is not very effective at all. Often people can test positive days and weeks later." Dr. Isaac Bogoch, associate professor at University of Toronto's Temerty Faculty of Medicine, said it's not entirely clear what the policy's goals are, but such measures have not helped. "We know from the past that very focused and targeted travel measures such as this don't do much to prevent the spread of COVID, either by importing COVID to Canada, or by the threat of variants of concern in Canada," he said. Bogoch said it would have helped if China had been transparent with their COVID-19 data, variants, vaccines and spread... While not a popular view, Furness said it would be much more effective if all governments required negative COVID-19 tests and vaccinations on all flights."
The covid hystericists still cheer this, of course, as well as obsessing over covid brain damage and variants. And we're still pretending that the vaccines reduce transmission
Matt Walsh on Twitter - "The sports media are far, far angrier at Aaron Rodgers for not getting vaccinated than Deshaun Watson for sexually assaulting dozens of women, or Henry Ruggs for driving 125 mph while drunk and killing someone
Sorry I meant 156 mph"
Opinion | The Hard Covid-19 Questions We’re Not Asking - The New York Times - "We think much of the confusion and disagreement among scientists and nonexperts alike comes down to undefined and sometimes conflicting goals in responding to the pandemic. What are we actually trying to achieve in the United States? If the goal is getting to zero infections and staying at that level before dropping restrictions, one set of policies applies. If the goal is to make this virus like the seasonal flu, a different set of policies follows... there are several possible aims of any policy addressing whether children should wear masks in schools. Those goals could include the protection of immune-compromised people; reaching zero infections, zero deaths or even reducing transmission of other respiratory pathogens — and achieving these aims might require indefinite mask mandates. But if any of these are part of a school’s rationale, its leaders need to say it clearly and have an open discussion about the pros and the cons. Any organization setting a mask mandate at this point in the pandemic in the United States must pair that mandate with an offramp plan. Sleepwalking into indefinite masking is not in anyone’s interests and can increase distrust after an already very difficult year. What if the stated goal is simply, “Kids need to be in school, period.” Considering the devastating costs of having children out of school last year, including dramatic and quantifiable learning loss in math and reading, this is a very reasonable and defensible goal. How might that then drive policy? Setting that goal would mean deploying more tools to keep children in school, like using rapid antigen tests and allowing kids who test negative to go to in-person class rather than mass quarantining hundreds or thousands of children who had close contact to people with the virus, as is happening now. Or, we accept that there will be more cases in children, recognizing that disease severity for a vast majority of kids is low... We use schools as the example here, but much of the same applies to broader societal questions over mass gatherings, live entertainment and returning to offices. There are questions around how vaccinated people should live their lives if the vaccines reduce the likelihood of spread but don’t absolutely and completely prevent breakthrough infections and transmission, which was never going to be the case. If the goal is zero spread, which we think is not realistic, then the country would need to keep many of the most restrictive measures in place — an approach that has serious public health consequences of its own"
From 2021
N.B. doctors suspended for being unvaccinated allowed to return to practice - "When the doctors were suspended, Schollenberg said physicians have to lead by example and also not put their patients' health in jeopardy... The doctors were suspended on Nov. 30 at midnight at the request of the hospitals, said Schollenberg, a move that left their patients scrambling to find care in a province already desperate for more doctors... New Brunswick is the only province that suspended any physicians for failing to provide proof of vaccination, according to Schollenberg."
From April 2022. Weird, we're still told no one ever claimed the vaccine would reduce transmission
Paul Krugman Thinks Holding Religious Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Like 'Dumping Neurotoxins Into Public Reservoirs' - "When the Supreme Court blocked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's restrictions on religious services this week, it was the first time the justices had enforced constitutional limits on government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The decision predictably provoked hyperbolic reactions from critics who seem to think politicians should be free to do whatever they consider appropriate during a public health crisis... There are several problems with Krugman's gloss on the case, starting with his understanding of the constitutional right at stake. The Court was applying the First Amendment's ban on laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion, which includes conduct as well as belief. Krugman, of course, is right that the Free Exercise Clause is not a license for "dumping neurotoxins into public reservoirs"—or, to take a more familiar example, conducting human sacrifices. But it is hard to take seriously his suggestion that holding a religious service during the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of the safeguards observed, is tantamount to poisoning millions of people's drinking water. Under Cuomo's rules, "houses of worship" in state-designated "red" zones were not allowed to admit more than 10 people; the cap in "orange" zones was 25. Those restrictions applied regardless of a building's capacity. A 1,000-seat church, for example, would be limited to 1 percent of its capacity in a red zone and 2.5 percent of its capacity in an orange zone. Cuomo's restrictions on religious gatherings were much more onerous than the rules for myriad secular activities that pose similar risks of virus transmission. That point was crucial because the Court has held that laws are presumptively unconstitutional when they discriminate against religion. At the same time, it has said the Free Exercise Clause does not require religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws, which obviously would include statutes that prohibit mass poisoning or murder. It is undisputed that both the Brooklyn diocese and Agudath Israel, which sued Cuomo on behalf of the Orthodox synagogues it represents, were following strict COVID-19 safety protocols, including face masks and physical distancing. It is also undisputed that no disease clusters have been tied to their institutions since they reopened. The plaintiffs were not asking to carry on as if COVID-19 did not exist. They were instead arguing that Cuomo's policy singled out houses of worship for especially harsh treatment and was not "narrowly tailored" to serve the "compelling state interest" of curtailing the epidemic... Cuomo suddenly increased the effective occupancy cap for a 1,000- seat church 50-fold in formerly red zones and 20-fold in formerly orange zones. By Krugman's logic, the governor is now allowing behavior as reckless as "dumping neurotoxins into public reservoirs." Yet this is the same man whose judgment on these matters Krugman thinks we should trust without question. "The scary thing is that 5 members of the court appear to think they're living in the Fox cinematic universe, where actual facts about things like disease transmission don't matter," Krugman says. If so, Cuomo himself seems to have succumbed to the same propaganda, since he concluded that his original rules were far more restrictive than necessary... the six opinions issued on Wednesday night, no matter their conclusions, do not simply express policy preferences or partisan allegiances. They show the justices grappling with constitutional issues, as they are supposed to do... while only five justices agreed that an emergency injunction was appropriate, seven were prepared to at least entertain the possibility that Cuomo's restrictions were unconstitutional. Perhaps that proposition is not as outlandish as critics like Krugman think. Leaving aside the specific legal issues raised by this case, the broader question is whether a public health emergency makes constitutional constraints optional. COVID-19 lockdowns that blocked access to abortion by classifying it as a nonessential medical service, for example, have been successfully challenged in several states. Does Krugman think those courts should have shown the same deference to politicians he believes is appropriate when restrictions on religious freedom are challenged? In a Harvard Law Review Forum essay published last July, American University law professor Lindsay Wiley and University of Texas at Austin law professor Stephen Vladeck present a forceful argument against suspending the usual standards of judicial review during a crisis like the COVID-19 epidemic. They note that "the suspension principle is inextricably linked with the idea that a crisis is of finite—and brief—duration"; it is therefore "ill-suited for long-term and open-ended emergencies like the one in which we currently find ourselves." They add that "the suspension model is based upon the oft-unsubstantiated assertion that 'ordinary' judicial review will be too harsh on government actions in a crisis"—a notion that seems misguided given that "the principles of proportionality and balancing driving most modern constitutional standards permit greater incursions into civil liberties in times of greater communal need." Wiley and Vladeck emphasize "the importance of an independent judiciary in a crisis—'as perhaps the only institution that is in any structural position to push back against potential overreaching by the local, state, or federal political branches.'" They quote George Mason law professor (and Volokh Conspiracy blogger) Ilya Somin's observation that "imposing normal judicial review on emergency measures can help reduce the risk that the emergency will be used as a pretext to undermine constitutional rights and weaken constraints on government power even in ways that are not really necessary to address the crisis." Without such review, Wiley and Vladeck warn, "we risk ending up with decisions like Korematsu v. United States," the notorious 1944 ruling that upheld the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II. The risk of excessive deference, they note, is that courts will "sustain gross violations of civil rights because they are either unwilling or unable to meaningfully look behind the government's purported claims of exigency.""
From 2020
This is why liberals want racism declared a public health crisis, so they can do anything they want
Meme - Young Daddy @Toure: "If you think "closing the Southern border" is truly part of a serious Covid strategy then you need to stop watching Fox and stop consuming all that anti—immigrant propaganda and go get vaccinated."
Young Daddy @Toure: "Djokovic actually does not have a "right" to enter a country that he's not a citizen of. Nothing requires Australia to let him in."
BBC Radio 4 - Moral Maze, The Morality of Mortality - "‘Lockdown starts tonight. Our liberties are being suspended, many of our livelihoods likely wrecked, much of what we enjoy banned, even human contact strictly regulated in what seems in a secular society the sacred cause of saving lives. The Prime Minister described the prospect of a sharp rise in the Coronavirus death toll as a medical and moral disaster to be avoided, it seems at all costs. What do the pandemic and our response to it tell us about our changing attitude to death? What would previous generations who lived with an almost everyday experience of mortality by religions that saw their time on Earth as a preparation for and death as the gateway to an everlasting afterlife make of it? A disease that mostly kills those sick already, at an average age well over twice what humans have been able to expect for most of their history. We certainly seem to value human life more. Science has made us healthier for longer and holds out the possibility life might be prolonged indefinitely. Is that a good thing? Or do we care too much about longevity and too little about meaning? Is it really healthy to regard death for the time being at least, the only certainty in life, as a failure, either individual or institutional?'...
‘I remember seeing a 16th century wedding ring at the Victorian Albert Museum and it had the image of a skull on it with behold thy end in there and the implication was yes, you might be getting married, happiest day of your life. But you're going to snuff it, aren't you? And I just wonder whether we've lost that ability to confront death and how that can actually be quite a life affirming thing'...
‘There's a difficulty in saying, let's just, you know, shelter or shield the vulnerable and the elderly. And at risk of being unnecessarily controversial and I don’t want to be, but sometimes that's smacks of a rather white middle class solution. Because we know that two thirds of family, of British Asian families as the ONS terms them are multi generational. A third of black families are multi generational.’...
‘I think that we as as a nation and across the developed world have forgotten what ordinary dying, ordinary human dying looks like, as a biological process. And we've replaced our intimate knowledge of it with versions of it from drama and from literature, that are misrepresentations and terrified ourselves. And that's made us afraid of the conversations.’"
Not all British blacks and Asians can isolate their elderly and vulnerable, so because they make up only 10% of the population the whole country must be locked down. Amazing logic.
BBC Radio 4 - Moral Maze, The Morality of Vaccination - "‘If people are skeptical of a vaccine, it doesn't help that the state and the medical profession do make mistakes and are often too slow to admit it.’...
‘We only have to look at the kind of restraints we've put on people recently, through this pandemic. If it's justified to lock people up in their homes and have major lockdowns to make it harder for people to get health care, unfortunately, which has an impact on the health to put them in situations where their mental health deteriorates. If all of that is justified, then we also have to consider that it might be justified to use a vaccine, which gets rid of all those other problems’
‘Are
n't you on a rather dangerous moral ratchet there because you've just laid out a number of things that not everyone agrees with? Some people do, and a lot of people don't.’"
So much for the 'myth' of the slippery slope
BBC Radio 4 - Moral Maze, Moral certainty in a pandemic - "‘Are we just doing something because it's been learned behavior? Or are we doing this because it's something that we feel, I think, opening doors for women and not opening doors for everyone. I think that does create a mindset and shows our children or the younger people in our lives, that there is a different way to behave towards women than there is to men. Because they might be weaker, or in this case, they might need to be put on a pedestal. And I think that is problematic.’...
‘The chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser both made the point very clearly, that lockdowns also have significant health harms… balancing the health harms from lockdown versus the health harms from COVID is not straightforward. And in the long term, we may see that the health harms and the Department of Health's own analysis showed that the long term health and from lockdown are very significant, as well as the shorter term ones for mental health harms, etc. So it was not, I don't think it was an economy versus health. I think it was a health harms from COVID versus health harms from lockdown. And the chief medical officer made the same point yesterday at the press conference.’
‘You think that early lockdown had adverse consequences? I think, as I understand it, you think it produced worse second ways, but others have very different views. Now I wonder how certain are you. You have your own opinion, I don't want to get into the detail of the evidence on which you have reached your conclusion. I'm more interested in you if you can tell me on what basis do you reach any conclusion at all in an area of uncertainty where so many experts disagree with each other.’
‘So I'm not certain and one of the points I've made consistently over the last year is the problem with scientists who are too certain in their conclusions based on very weak evidence. I mean, the evidence base for what we've had to do throughout this pandemic has been consistently weak. And we've had to make the best guesses based on limited evidence. I mean, SAGE were very confident early on that China would have a significant resurgence after their first lockdown, which didn't happen, they were confident that closing borders would not be effective, which again proved to be wrong. They were confident that facemasks would make no difference, which again proved to be wrong. So uncertainty has been the feature really off this pandemic, because we didn't have good quality evidence. So I certainly wouldn't say, I would not say that I have certainty. This is my best estimate of where of what the evidence suggests today.’
‘But there were some countries whose leaders were more certain. And they took a very unpopular decision, and many, in many respects, to lock down very fast and had better consequences.’
‘That's correct. And they were lucky. And they went against the advice of the World Health Organization, which was a brave thing to do. There was no-’
‘Luck or judgement” Or moral clarity?’
‘I don't think it was moral clarity, many countries actually close their borders early, including all those that have now overtaken our death rate. So there are features of this disease, particularly in relation to the age of the population, the degree of travel, that's usually for whole populations, population density, obesity levels, etc, that affect ultimate death rates as well as healthcare systems. So it's, it's not that simple unfortunately. As I said, those countries, particularly in Europe, like Norway, and Finland are definitely exceptions, who have managed to have very low death rates. But they, as I said, they are the exception.’...
‘One of the major criticisms of Margaret Thatcher is that she was just too bloody minded. She wasn't open to persuasion, and that she was single minded in the face of criticism.’...
‘It's a terrible mistake to confuse moral clarity with an absence of doubt. Many, such as myself wrestle all the time with complexities both moral and practical, but ultimately, I think it's wrong to duck a moral position, while all the time keeping an open mind to the possibility you may be wrong.’...
‘I think one of the most chilling aspects of today's political tribalism that we see is the sheer certainty. And whenever I see these people on Twitter, just going out of control and accusing people of all sorts of horrible things that you can tell they've never doubted themselves, they've never thought to themselves, I could be wrong. And if that comes from a political leader, then if a political leader says he's got all the answers, I don't trust him.’...
‘The evidence we had in November 2002, just a few months before the invasion, was that the United Nations Security Council believed sincerely that Saddam Hussein was a threat. And that's why the resolution on the seventh of November, resolution 1441, was actually passed. So there was a degree of certainty, which turned out to be not quite so certain once the facts were actually known… quite a lot of people have said sorry, in relation to the Iraq war, but you have to take the Iraq war on the back of the genocide in Rwanda, where the world failed to act, the successful intervention in relation to Southeast Asia, and what happened with Kosovo, the intervention that was absolutely necessary in Afghanistan, these things can't be taken in isolation. And the moral imperative is always to weigh out what the consequences of inaction will be’"
Ironically, feminism is all about double standards showing that women are weaker
So much for yelling "trust the science"
Moral certainty is only a virtue when you agree with that person
BBC Radio 4 - Moral Maze, Is it immoral to refuse the vaccine? - "‘Are people who refuse to or are even hesitant about having the vaccine, are they immoral?'
‘If by immoral, we mean that the person violates a duty or strict obligation, then I tend to think the answer is no. It might be the case that each person who refuses the vaccine is doing something permissible. That's not because I'm anti vaccine by any stretch. I'm a public health person. I think there are overwhelming reasons to get the vaccine, so likely everyone should get the vaccine. So my question is, what's the difference between should and a strict duty? And what I want to focus on is that duty is our strictest moral concept. If I have a duty, then I have a strict requirement. If I have a duty then others in the moral community likely have the standing to demand that I do something. They don't have to ask or engage or entreat. So that makes sense for like my causing senseless violence, you all have the standing to say don't do that. And the question here is, does it work in the case of vaccination, and I'm not sure it does, for two properties of getting vaccinated. The first is that as a medical procedure, so getting vaccinated allows another access to my body. And generally with really good reason, we think that people have near unilateral dominion over their bodies. So it's very good to give blood, there's tons of reason to donate a kidney. But you're not obligated to those things, we tend to think. Because no one has the standing to demand that you give up of your body. And so here's the second property. Is that an individual vaccinating by themselves does not make a great difference to say achieving herd immunity or preventing the development of variants. Those are collective goods that have to be achieved by the entire population. And each individual contribution is very small. So it's not clear to me is that the small contribution of an individual getting vaccinated outweighs the dominion they have over their body.’...
'John Stuart Mill and his doctrine of harm principle. Our first witness… thought it applied very much in this case, it applied because the sins of omission, carry the same weight as sins of commission. Completely contradicted by the second witness… because individual choice in this vaccination case, had only an infinitesimal effect on the collective good'"
Given that the vaccines are not sterilising, vaccination doesn't lead to herd immunity or prevent the development of variants anyway.
Some people think there is no difference between sins of commission or sins of omission. So if you can force people to get vaccinated (even assuming that helps others), you can also force others to give blood
BBC Radio 4 - Moral Maze, Christmas 2020 - "‘Throughout this crisis, we've been forced to contemplate what is it we're living for. And for the last nine months we have lived in order to live, in order to survive. But with Christmas approaching, this really does test that doesn't it? Because it makes us ask ourselves, what is the point of my existence? If I'm just sitting indoors all day or talking to people on the phone, that's not the same as being with people. Isn't that why this feels like a breaking point, because people are finally saying, you know what, whatever the risks are of COVID. The point of me being alive is to be with other people.’...
‘Flu is dangerous. It's dangerous every season. And it may well be that next season, the government could say, you know what, we want to save more lives again, we're going to place more restrictions. Because we've decided a seasonal flu is very, is very dangerous overall. And they’ll have set a precedent, and there'll be nothing we can do’...
‘If you went to a big Christmas family gathering, and then subsequently it was discovered that you were carrying the COVID virus and the family member died as a result. And how would you feel about that? Would you feel a sense of personal responsibility?’
‘Well, I will, I won't be going to any big family gatherings because I have made the individual decision myself, that one must be cautious. But that's something individuals should make, not governments. Do you think that you're always assuming that people will put other people at risk? And I don't think that that's correct.’...
‘Christmas become a celebration of materialism and gluttony and hedonism, and commercialization so that the goodness in Christmas has been almost overwhelmed.’
‘That is an argument that's been made for almost 2000 years... Let me give you a quote. I think Christmas has been ruined. It should be about remembering the Nativity of Jesus and trying to be better human beings. Instead, it now seems to be about too much eating, too much drinking and falling out with each other. That’s St Gregory Nazianzen in the year 384. That's 30 years odd after Christmas, mid-winter became a generally accepted festival in the Western Roman Empire’"
Weird how only the person who infects others with covid is responsible, and not the people who willingly mix with others
Scientists Mystified, Wary, as Africa Avoids COVID Disaster - "Earlier this week, Zimbabwe recorded just 33 new COVID-19 cases and zero deaths, in line with a recent fall in the disease across the continent, where World Health Organization data show that infections have been dropping since July. When the coronavirus first emerged last year, health officials feared the pandemic would sweep across Africa, killing millions. Although it's still unclear what COVID-19's ultimate toll will be, that catastrophic scenario has yet to materialize in Zimbabwe or much of the continent... there is something "mysterious" going on in Africa that is puzzling scientists, said Wafaa El-Sadr, chair of global health at Columbia University. "Africa doesn't have the vaccines and the resources to fight COVID-19 that they have in Europe and the U.S., but somehow they seem to be doing better," she said. Fewer than 6% of people in Africa are vaccinated. For months, the WHO has described Africa as "one of the least affected regions in the world" in its weekly pandemic reports. Some researchers say the continent's younger population -- the average age is 20 versus about 43 in Western Europe — in addition to their lower rates of urbanization and tendency to spend time outdoors, may have spared it the more lethal effects of the virus so far. Several studies are probing whether there might be other explanations, including genetic reasons or exposure to other diseases... The impact of the coronavirus has also been relatively muted in poor countries like Afghanistan, where experts predicted outbreaks amid ongoing conflict would prove disastrous. Hashmat Arifi, a 23-year-old student in Kabul, said he hadn't seen anyone wearing a mask in months, including at a recent wedding he attended alongside hundreds of guests. In his university classes, more than 20 students routinely sit unmasked in close quarters."
From November 2021. It's almost as if Covid is not deadly, despite what so many people think
Let’s Declare a Pandemic Amnesty - The Atlantic - "Because I thought schools should reopen and argued that kids as a group were not at high risk, I was called a “teacher killer” and a “génocidaire.”"
This got bashed, but actually Emily Oster, at least in The Atlantic, doesn't seem to have been a covid hystericist. Sadly, even months after this was published, there were still many covid hystericists around so no, not everyone wants to move on
Aaron Kheriaty, MD on Twitter - "They have pivoted from “follow The Science” (and we are The Science) to “nobody knew anything so don’t hold us to account”."
Meme - "The Left: "Why won't you grant us Amnesty for COVID?
Nearly half of Dems say fines, prison time appropriate for *questioning* vaccines, poll says"
Meme - "That face you make when the people that locked you down, fired you from your job, and let your loved ones die alone are now calling for amnesty..."
Meme - "2021, Gollum: If anyone refuses the covid shot, they should be fired, put in camps, have their kids taken, be denied medical care and left to die.
2022, Sméagol: We were ALL misinformed, let's just forgive each other and forget about it."
People who hold parties that lead to COVID-19 deaths could face manslaughter charges: experts - The Globe and Mail
From 2021. Given how un-deadly covid is, this is hilarious
MALCOLM: It's time for Canada to start living again | Toronto Sun - "I’m old enough to remember three months ago when left-wing voices were hectoring the anti-lockdown crowd for daring to criticize the all-knowing public health officials. But now that public health officials are beginning to change their tune, the authoritarian lockdown crowd — including Nenshi and Smith — have given themselves permission to condemn these experts to their heart’s content. It must be nice to believe you have the moral high ground no matter what side of the issue you take. The global COVID pandemic and ensuing lockdowns gave these busybodies a taste of unlimited power and control, and they liked it a little bit too much to simply let it go. Ironically, by demanding more restrictions — even for vaccinated Canadians — these left-wing doctors, journalists and politicians are undermining the case to get vaccinated. The reality is that, according to data from the Public Health Agency of Canada, the COVID case mortality rate for patients with one dose is 0.0027% and 0.0018% for those who are double vaxxed. That’s about on par with the seasonal flu. Compound the very low risk for the vaccinated with new information about the drastic impact of lockdowns on mental health and well-being and it makes Alberta’s new approach seem like a slam dunk. A recent Statscan report showed that more than four times as many working-aged Canadians died from the lockdowns than from the virus."
From 2021
Impossible choices: How this Brampton community explains Canada’s COVID-19 crisis like no other - The Globe and Mail
From 2021. A good read on essential workers
Protection from previous natural infection compared with mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe COVID-19 in Qatar: a retrospective cohort study - "Previous natural infection was associated with lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, regardless of the variant, than mRNA primary-series vaccination"
Covid apartheid against people with natural immunity was never about public health
Addendum: "Vaccine protection against infection waned with time after the second dose, whereas natural immunity showed little waning in protection for at least 8 months after the primary infection... even during the omicron wave, natural infection was associated with lower incidence than BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccination"
