You have two choices:
- Risk Covid-19 infection. Do what you can to blunt and prevent it up front. You may be resistant (80% of the population was and is) by cross-reaction, but there is no cheap and available way to know, nor to quantify how resistant; it could range from "immune" to "will get sniffles" to "will get a mild flu." If you get infected anyway then choose to either (1) tough it out and do nothing or (2) hit it immediately with drugs that we have decades of data on -- they may do nothing or they may help but the odds are overwhelming that they will not kill you. Either way, once you get infected you have a measure of immunity. This is what everyone has done with every respiratory pandemic in history up until this one, except that until the last 30 or 40 years there were no early treatments at all, so "tough it out" it was.
- Take a lightly-tested shot. With that option you get some measure of immunity. However, the usual testing for adverse effects was truncated severely. There was no, for example, sample group of 1,000 where everyone got blood drawn and a panoply of tests run every few days for a couple of months to gauge immediate adverse effect impact. The usual dose-ranging studies were truncated, so whether you really needed the "full dose" or a quarter of it would do the same thing is unknown, and whether the adverse effects were more-severe with a higher dose is also unknown. Pharmacological distribution studies, also part of the usual testing paradigm for a drug, were either not done at all or not published, so where the shot accumulates along with its products were.... unknown (now known due to a leak of a paper out of Japan, and it's not good.)
The claim, made without evidence, was that the immunity provided by the second choice was at least as good if not better than that provided by the first choice. There was zero scientific evidence for this; that statement was a bald-faced lie intended to induce you to do something that was, on-balance, known to be dangerous simply because we deliberately did not take the time to find out.
There is now evidence emerging that the second choice is wildly dangerous. Emerging evidence is that six in ten jab recipients in a small study have elevated clotting indications. For comparison in healthy adults about 1 in 10 has an elevated level in this test without showing pathology. It is very likely this is not harmless but at present we have exactly zero data on how dangerous that elevation will prove over time. I note that clotting disorders of any sort are the kind of thing that produce both heart attacks and strokes, and if you are diagnosed with this under ordinary circumstances doctors get real worried about what might happen either immediately or in the foreseeable future. We didn't know this up front because we did not look but it correlates with the examples of sudden stroke and heart attack that are being occasionally reported soon after getting the jabs. Is the risk immediate and then over? We don't know.
Myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, is a serious condition now associated with these jabs. It occasionally shows up in people as a result of viral infection. It is now showing up at a significantly elevated rate after taking the jabs, especially in young men. We do not know why. We do not know why because, once again, we did not do the work early on to detect troponin and d-Dimer elevation during the early tests. This work was not done because it takes time and it was most-important for TRUMP and BIDEN to both start jabbing people immediately and then for both, along with Governors and State Health Department officials, to coerce people by lying to them about safety and claiming that these jabs were in fact tested and known to be safe. So-called "private entities" including businesses and colleges jumped on the bandwagon. Note that neither private firms or colleges are immune from suit for getting it wrong; the drug companies are but not educational institutions or employers, including medical employers.
If in fact the jabs were superior in their immune response to natural infection the risks might be worth it although this is properly a personal decision.
But we didn't know that the immunity conferred was equivalent or superior either, once again, because we intentionally did not take the time to find out.
With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID.
By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.
Natural infection is almost seven times more likely to result in actual immunity than vaccination.
In other words taking the shot is grossly inferior and thus deploying and using them, in other than very high persons where the odds of a bad outcome from natural infection is extremely high, was stupid.
Further since you can cut your risk of a bad outcome from natural infection by some amount, likely around 2/3rds or better if you hit it hard and immediately with inexpensive drugs then natural infection even more wildly superior to the jabs and, simply on the math.
In short with early treatment even in seriously morbid people the jabs should have never been deployed as they were the wildly inferior choice and this assumes that they have no adverse effects at all -- which we know is not true.
In other words greed and speed produced an outcome that has and will kill people.
Oh, and if you were already infected and took the jab then you got nothing at all as your existing immunity is vastly superior to whatever the jab might have been able to confer.
Congratulations fools, you rode the short bus and now, if you got jabbed, not only are you stuck with whatever damage was done to your body, which may be very significant and permanent, you got inferior protection that is wildly less effective or, in the case of someone previously infected you got nothing protective out of it as well.
Do stupid things, win stupid prizes.