It's like you don't understand what even the words you write actually mean.
glen > Perhaps it is better to be exposed to viruses before being subjected to RNA vaccination, irregardless of health or age.
Perhaps you should support that claim rather than issue it after citing an article
that contradicts it. Pretending that a suggestion that something would be better
isn't giving advice is nonsense, even by your standards. And you don't appear
to understand how appending (ir)regardless of health or age alters your claim.
Here's some simple math for you. At age around 80-90, the death rate upon infection
is about 5%. That 50,000 for a million infected. Vaccination reduces that by about 20-fold
with a subsequent reduction over time to about 10-fold. We'll use the smaller effect.
Vaccination then saves about 45,000 lives per million infected in that age group.
Now consider what happens if we split up into two groups of 5 million each.
The five million play devil may care, 1M get infected. 50,000 die (more suffer severe
consequences but we'll even ignore that for simplicity). The next 5 M get the vax. We'll
ignore the protection against infection and say a similar number, 1M get infected. Only
5,000 die. Now that first set that survived a natural infection subsequently get the vax.
They have this longer lasting extra protection. So their rate of death per infection is,
here exaggerated beyond the paper you referenced, twice as good as those just vaxed.
So that's 20-fold below the original 5%. 0.25% or 2500 per million. You just have to ignore
the 50,000 per million you sacrificed. But with 1 million break-through infections in that
group the sum is the first 50,000 plus 2,500 more 52,500.
In the just vaxed group who only have vax immunity, their current levels only give them
an protection of 0.5% (instead of super-duper 0.25% in that age bracket). Thus if 1M
of that cohort get a breakthrough infection 5,000 will die. Add that to the 5000 we scored
earlier and now it's 10,000. The death if we pursue the vaccination first produces 10,000
which is significantly less than 52,500 dead. I think saving 42,500 lives saved is the
And this is exaggerating thing in favor of your "perhaps it is better ..." scenario.
This is all pretty obvious stuff. Writing it down in a possibly pedantic enough way
for it to make sense even to a reluctant audience is the hard part.
And less anyone misunderstand, there's lots of other damaging consequences to
a "natural infection" beyond just death directly related to the infection. It is absolutely,
clearly, unquestionably, better to get vaccinated prior to getting an infection.
It reduces your chance of getting an infection. It reduces your chances of suffering
serious infection or death if you do get an infection. It reduces the time you are
infectious to others if you do get an infection and thus help reduce the spread in
the population (you know, caring for others). The fact that you may, on average,
have slightly better immunity if you survive an infection first will seldom add up
to an overall advantage if you include the disadvantages associated with the
morbidity and mortality associated with an actual infection. It's not controversial
given the only slight improvements to immunity imparted by surviving an infection.