> Getting infected so that you can avoid getting infected just makes no sense.

Yes, and no one was arguing that.

> This does not mean that getting immunity through infection is preferable to getting immunity through vaccination.

Yes, and no one was arguing that.

> The worst case with vaccination is that you later get infected, probably have very mild disease, and get a boost to your immune response.

That is neither the worst case nor the best case. It's also irrelevant because, again, no one was arguing about it.

I can see now why you think that HN has vocal anti-vaxxers, you think that anyone who disagrees with you is anti-vaxx. Protecting one's ego is a terrible trap and a fool's errand.

> The vaccines all induce production of neutralizing antibodies

Thanks for that Nature paper that I'd already read. The question is, are the presence of neutralising antibodies the same as sterilising immunity?

The answer is no. If you have a paper from Nature showing sterilising immunity, that would help you. Otherwise, my original statement holds true, you were incorrect.

> If they get infected, fully vaccinated people are about 70% less likely to transmit the virus

You missed the bit where the Dutch study in your second link mentions that "The Alpha variant… was the dominant variant in the area at that time." The CDC and PHE stuff I cited was regarding delta.

Not only that, the third study you linked to was led by someone at PHE… Do you even read these things? Perhaps you put as much effort into reading that as you do with all the "vocal anti-vaxxers" posts on HN.

And again, it's irrelevant, unless you're trying to disprove any "science is settled" claims you've made by showing disagreement within weeks by people at the same health agency. Great work there!

> There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case…

And here again you will show you didn't bother to read what I wrote:

> There are some obvious reasons why this should be the case (e.g., vaccinated people clear the virus much more rapidly, meaning that they're infectious for a shorter span of time

and this is mine, from the comment you replied to:

> transmission can be lowered by any part of the immune response simply because it shortens the period that a carrier is infectious to others

Maybe you'll paraphrase me some more later.

I also wrote this:

> Take it down a notch, read more widely and with much more attention, please.

I didn't think you'd try and prove it right in your very next response.

Finally, and bringing us round nicely to the start:

> You also argue that people who get infected are less likely to get infected later than people who acquire immunity through vaccination.

No, that's not my argument, that's someone else's. I'm pointing out that disagreement exists, something you with your black and white thinking are unable to process. Well done for completely missing the point repeatedly while showing yourself to be wrong repeatedly.

Unless you're going to apologise - which clearly you're not - then I won't be partaking in this conversation any further, you're wasting everyone's time, not just mine.

----

Edit, a typo. Would my interrogator have noticed anyway?