If natural immunity is acceptable, what proportion of the unvaccinated-uninfected population will just take the risk? Half? More?

That's on them. It's not your job to police their choices, and especially not to impose "papers please" on everyone else. No thanks.

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.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

Quote from article: "In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."

So we have a situation where media-induced fear is causing people to panic until they rush to the hospital. It's certainly possible given that half of the hospitalizations are...not even meaningfully hospitalizations if they were mild or asymptomatic. What does this do to your narrative then, about how dangerous this is and how many millions will "continue to" take the risk?

Accepting only vaccination as evidence of protection reduces the size of that risk-taking population, and the concomitant social costs.

Nonsense. Over 100 million Americans had covid already.[0] We now know that antibodies from past infection are superior to vaccination.[1] [2] So why would you make this arbitrary demand for vaccination as the proof, when the antibodies are what count?

[0] - https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news...

"A new study published in the journal Nature estimates that 103 million Americans, or 31 percent of the U.S. population, had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 by the end of 2020."

[1] - https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

"The natural immune protection that develops after a SARS-CoV-2 infection offers considerably more of a shield against the Delta variant of the pandemic coronavirus than two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, according to a large Israeli study that some scientists wish came with a “Don’t try this at home” label. "

[2] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-27/previous-...

And we know based on the current evidence those antibodies will last for decades. [3]

[3] - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9

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't rushing to implement it.

The answer is not "probably yes." The answer is a resounding yes, but the answer is also that no proof should be needed unless you work in a hospital where vaccination requirements already existed. We don't need a "papers please" society. If you're concerned for your health, get vaccinated if you don't have antibodies already. Wear a mask when cases go above N in your area. That's how simple this is. There's no need for building systems of control that will turn into systems of enslavement.

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.

Meanwhile, you have a situation where healthcare resources are being intentionally fired or are quitting because of the idiotic mandates. [4]

[4] - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-hospital-pause...

"An upstate New York hospital system said it will be forced to "pause" maternity services this month because some employees' refusal to get vaccinated against Covid-19 has caused staffing shortages."

This is entirely a manufactured problem.

While risk-takers do pay into the same system, their premiums don't yet reflect the increased expected costs of their personal choice.

We've been hearing for YEARS about how bad insurance companies are. How they make record profits each and every year and still pass on higher premiums, higher deductibles, and shittier service to their customers. So why are people feigning concern for health insurance corporation bottom lines already? Wake up.

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're at war with the army we've got.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/09/covid-hos...

"In other words, the study suggests that roughly half of all the hospitalized patients showing up on COVID-data dashboards in 2021 may have been admitted for another reason entirely, or had only a mild presentation of disease."

The media induced panic that causes people to flood the hospitals when they get a sniffle, because of fear. The situation with hospitalizations appears to have been exaggerated.