<story><title>Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?</title><url>https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>MSM</author><text>&amp;gt;Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? 
&amp;gt;What about drinking and smoking?&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already, or at least offset the costs. For example, there are &amp;quot;sin taxes&amp;quot; for things like cigarettes and alcohol, which means smokers and drinkers are paying disproportionately more taxes than those that don&amp;#x27;t.&lt;p&gt;You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disproportionately more simply by buying more food than someone who weighs 20% less.&lt;p&gt;All that aside though- forcing fat people to get skinny isn&amp;#x27;t a valid comparison to forcing people to take a vaccine. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years (or a whole lifetime!).&lt;p&gt;Let&amp;#x27;s say, hypothetically, there existed a &lt;i&gt;free&lt;/i&gt; shot which would immediately make its recipient a perfectly lean 20 BMI and grants all the benefits of health and exercise without the work. How many people would choose not to take it, and how would society view those that decided to walk around weighing 400lbs? That&amp;#x27;s really the apples to apples comparison here, and I think you&amp;#x27;d find there would be very few folks walking around at 400lbs in that scenario.</text></item><item><author>ixacto</author><text>To reply as the devils advocate to this comment, what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn&amp;#x27;t want e.g. not bear risk if they want to?&lt;p&gt;Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove me wrong..).&lt;p&gt;What about drinking and smoking?  Maybe we should also ban these because these people will probably go on government health insurance when they come down with chronic health issues from too much alcohol or tobacco.&lt;p&gt;I guess I don&amp;#x27;t see where your argument about societal costs doesn&amp;#x27;t become a slippery slope.&lt;p&gt;Also full disclosure I&amp;#x27;m 100% vaccinated and will get the booster in Dec.</text></item><item><author>kristjansson</author><text>Because it&amp;#x27;s a terrible policy prescription.  If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half?  More?&lt;p&gt;Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way.&lt;p&gt;Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs.&lt;p&gt;Should there be a third policy option - accepting test-verified infection and recovery as of _now_ as evidence of protection, but discounting future recoveries?  Based on the observational studies cited all over this thread , probably yes.  Seems like associated costs would be higher though, and the only benefit would be less gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere, so its understandable the CDC isn&amp;#x27;t rushing to implement it.&lt;p&gt;Should those people just be allowed to assume the risk?  Not while the costs are predominantly social. Insurance (or tax-payers) pay the financial costs, healthcare workers bear the burden of treating a preventable illness, and we all assume the risk that healthcare resources will be stretched to the point of unavailability.  While risk-takers do pay into the same system, their premiums don&amp;#x27;t yet reflect the increased expected costs of their personal choice.  While ICUs often run close to or at capacity in one hospital, rarely do they run close at every hospital in a region, as is happening in the south and will happen elsewhere.  While it would be nice if there were more doctors, nurses and facilities able to treat patients, we&amp;#x27;re at war with the army we&amp;#x27;ve got.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>phkahler</author><text>&amp;gt;&amp;gt; All that aside though- forcing fat people to get skinny isn&amp;#x27;t a valid comparison to forcing people to take a vaccine. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years&lt;p&gt;Well we could just tell the fat people they aren&amp;#x27;t allowed to eat in restaurants and can&amp;#x27;t keep their jobs. That way they won&amp;#x27;t be able afford or get the food that keeps them fat! &amp;lt;&amp;#x2F;sarcasm&amp;gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Why doesn’t natural immunity count in the US?</title><url>https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>MSM</author><text>&amp;gt;Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? 
&amp;gt;What about drinking and smoking?&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s a lot of investment in trying to fix these problems already, or at least offset the costs. For example, there are &amp;quot;sin taxes&amp;quot; for things like cigarettes and alcohol, which means smokers and drinkers are paying disproportionately more taxes than those that don&amp;#x27;t.&lt;p&gt;You could argue that overweight folks are also paying disproportionately more simply by buying more food than someone who weighs 20% less.&lt;p&gt;All that aside though- forcing fat people to get skinny isn&amp;#x27;t a valid comparison to forcing people to take a vaccine. One takes a couple minutes and the other is something requiring an hour or more of dedicated time per day for potentially years (or a whole lifetime!).&lt;p&gt;Let&amp;#x27;s say, hypothetically, there existed a &lt;i&gt;free&lt;/i&gt; shot which would immediately make its recipient a perfectly lean 20 BMI and grants all the benefits of health and exercise without the work. How many people would choose not to take it, and how would society view those that decided to walk around weighing 400lbs? That&amp;#x27;s really the apples to apples comparison here, and I think you&amp;#x27;d find there would be very few folks walking around at 400lbs in that scenario.</text></item><item><author>ixacto</author><text>To reply as the devils advocate to this comment, what is the tolerance to social costs that society is willing to bear? Also why would one segment of society have to do something that it doesn&amp;#x27;t want e.g. not bear risk if they want to?&lt;p&gt;Should we tell people to get their BMI under 25 too? Overweight and obesity are going to cost much more in increased healthcare costs than COVID will in the coming decades (pls prove me wrong..).&lt;p&gt;What about drinking and smoking?  Maybe we should also ban these because these people will probably go on government health insurance when they come down with chronic health issues from too much alcohol or tobacco.&lt;p&gt;I guess I don&amp;#x27;t see where your argument about societal costs doesn&amp;#x27;t become a slippery slope.&lt;p&gt;Also full disclosure I&amp;#x27;m 100% vaccinated and will get the booster in Dec.</text></item><item><author>kristjansson</author><text>Because it&amp;#x27;s a terrible policy prescription.  If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half?  More?&lt;p&gt;Millions of people will just (continue to) take the risk, get sick, go to hospital, and die (in decreasing proportions), incurring substantial personal and social costs along the way.&lt;p&gt;Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs.&lt;p&gt;Should there be a third policy option - accepting test-verified infection and recovery as of _now_ as evidence of protection, but discounting future recoveries?  Based on the observational studies cited all over this thread , probably yes.  Seems like associated costs would be higher though, and the only benefit would be less gnashing of teeth here and elsewhere, so its understandable the CDC isn&amp;#x27;t rushing to implement it.&lt;p&gt;Should those people just be allowed to assume the risk?  Not while the costs are predominantly social. Insurance (or tax-payers) pay the financial costs, healthcare workers bear the burden of treating a preventable illness, and we all assume the risk that healthcare resources will be stretched to the point of unavailability.  While risk-takers do pay into the same system, their premiums don&amp;#x27;t yet reflect the increased expected costs of their personal choice.  While ICUs often run close to or at capacity in one hospital, rarely do they run close at every hospital in a region, as is happening in the south and will happen elsewhere.  While it would be nice if there were more doctors, nurses and facilities able to treat patients, we&amp;#x27;re at war with the army we&amp;#x27;ve got.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>dham</author><text>&amp;gt; Let&amp;#x27;s say, hypothetically, there existed a free shot which would immediately make its recipient a perfectly lean 20 BMI and grants all the benefits of health and exercise without the work&lt;p&gt;I would be very skeptical and wonder what the downside is</text></comment>