Antibodies are produced by the immune system when needed, and the supply you have after an infection will wane over a couple months. What matters is whether your infection or vaccine trains your immune memory. With more training your body will have a better immune response, so you're better off vaccinated, whether or not you've had a prior infection.
You were lucky to have a mild case. That doesn't guarantee that you'll never have a severe case. The odds of having a severe case could be low for you, but the odds of a negative reaction to the vaccine are almost certainly far lower.
It's just a lot safer to expose yourself to a small piece of a virus than the virus itself. Just like it's a lot safer to wear a seatbelt in a car, even though tons of people have gone their whole lives not wearing seatbelts and never suffered for it. We're talking about the difference between two small risks here, but there's a clear, easy way for everyone to lower their risk (except those who cannot receive the vaccine for medical reasons).
Tons of people have avoided the vaccine because they're confident they'll never, ever have a bad case of COVID, only to get a very bad case of COVID and big regrets. Others are living with the agonizing regret of having advised family members not to get vaccinated, only for those family members to die of COVID. [1]
Fear mongering propaganda piece from a propaganda newspaper. I can't read it (not that I want to) because it's behind a paywall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr_y6qANhts
I'm lucky to be alive at all, the odds are basically 0% that we would be alive. My age, health practices, local demographic composition, the odds of having a bad case to begin with, and the fact that I've had it already basically guarantees that I'll never have a severe case.
You can buy the 'safe' story if you want, but for the same reason I wouldn't have sprayed my kids with DDT in the 70's, I won't be vaccinating today: intuition. I won't be voluntarily introducing this risk to myself out of fear. If you're sold on 'the staticstics', go for it. I'm going to rely on my intuition. I've been alive > 40 yrs and everywhere I turn the government and pharma companies constantly fuck everyone they can for a dime. There is too much that smells badly to put stock in this 'vaccine' for me.
Is it customary for you to dismiss reporting as propaganda without reading it? Understood about the paywall, and I don't always like NYT reporting either, but there are plenty of accounts of unvaccinated people getting COVID and regretting their decision out there. Often young and healthy.
News articles aside, state statistics of COVID hospitalization and death show a clear, dramatic correlation with % of the population unvaccinated. Is that all fake? Is there a conspiracy to fake all statistics that clash with your worldview? Wouldn't that be a bit too convenient of a way to dismiss anything that doesn't confirm your beliefs?
Do you ever wonder if the media people telling you about media deception should include themselves in the critique? There's no shortage of documented deception by Stossel and other Fox personalities. Who watches the watchmen? Can we dismiss some as propaganda without reading while blindly accepting others? Isn't that how progressives sometimes get in trouble, by summarily dismissing evidence that doesn't fit their beliefs? Does it make sense for non-progressives to do the same thing?
All vaccines are complex products of science and factory processes. Do you distrust all of them, or just the new one?
1. "Often" doesn't mean "the majority". About 12% of COVID deaths were under 50 in September, and 4% were under 40. COVID is one of the biggest causes of death in both age groups. You can verify all of this with a couple clicks on https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm
2. Disingenuous doesn't mean "disagrees with me".
3. A problem with blindly trusting sources from only one side is not improved by indiscriminately citing many more sources from that same side. Especially when one of those sources claims that "post-vaccine" deaths vastly outnumber COVID deaths. If the author is convinced that "post-vaccine" deaths are due to the vaccine, he should sound the alarm on the number of old people that die "post-waking-up-in-the-morning". This is an actual example of disingenuity, by the way.
Or credulously citing a single Idaho doctor's anecdotal observation, while his state's hospitals deal with an unprecedented capacity crisis as the unvaccinated flood in. Will you hold yourself responsible for being so gullible when it turns out to be fraud, error, or a sensationalized coincidence unrelated to the vaccine? Or will you simply move on to the next batch of nonsense? Do you actually care if your beliefs have any connection to reality, or is blind trust in one side's propaganda sufficient to satisfy your intellectual curiosity?
Anyway, I see from your response that you're no longer listening to what I say. The sources you cite aren't really answering any of my questions or rebutting any of my claims. So I have nothing further to say beyond what I said in my last post. See you later and good luck out there.
Poking around suggests that neither side is giving the whole story, though. Both are in thrall to the ideology of their showrunners and audience, and both ignore and distort inconvenient facts for that ideology. That's sadly the norm these days, no matter what source you read.
I wouldn't blindly trust my safety and the safety of my kids to either side. They both have huge vested interests in promoting the stories they promote.
