The UK response - Part II - read OP

It doesn't really matter greatly whether natural immunity or vaccine-induced immunity is stronger; all that matters is whether either is sufficiently strong to provide a foundation for herd immunity.

If - as seems likely - they both are, then the question becomes "which has the greater morbidity?" Here, the vaccines are a clear winner. The process of acquiring immunity by vaccination has a mortality rate of 8.2 per million (in the United States, using predominantly Moderna and Pfizer); in the same country, the process of acquiring immunity by getting covid infection has a mortality rate of c. 17,000 per millon. So that's a no-brainer; however effective it was, we would never even licence a vaccine with such a mortality rate, never mind prefer it to the vaccine with a mortality rate of 8.2 per million.

The figures may differ in other countries where different vaccines are used and/or where standards of medical care differ, but a disparity this size is not going to be overcome by variations of that kind.

You can argue about the methods used for ascribing death to prior Covid infection, but the disparity between the Covid and vaccine figures is orders or magnitude - no amount of refining the definitions or data collection methods is going to change the overall picture - getting Covid is, on average, much, much more dangerous than getting the vaccine.

I didn't say it was as "died within 28 days of being vaccinated" figure; you said that.

I googled the Covid fatality rate per million cases for the US, and the vaccine fatality rate per million cases for the US. I picked the US because they've had both lots of Covid and lots of vaccination and because they are good at collating and publishing data, so I reckoned both figures would be available, and would be based on large datasets. And, gee, I was right.

Yikes. When I was in the debating soc in secondary school I'm glad I never came up against you haha, are you a lawyer? You should be.

I read it as a complement P

My company is formally returning to a hybrid model too with an informal arrangement amongst certain areas of the business that is more in line with the "appropriate" government advice. There is a lot dissatisfied with the informal nature of the arrangement as a newly hired director/manager with a disliking for WFH could all of a sudden impose the hybrid model on their team.

You're asserting — again — that the Covid death rate that I quote is in fact a rate for people who die within 28 days of a Covid diagnosis.

Firstly, why do you believe that this is the case?

Secondly, assuming that this is the case, for that to make a relevant difference to the question of which is the more risky way to acquire immunity, the "true" covid death rate would have to be less than 0.05% of the "within 28 days" death rate; which is to say, for every 2,000 people reported as having died of Covid, only 1 actually did. Do you think there is any possibility at all that the "true" Covid death rate is that low?

From careless typing. It should be 0.5%. And it's a round figure; if we're been excessively accurate, it would be 0.4824%. (8.2 per million is 0.4824% of 17,000 per million.)

Any answer to the questions I asked?

Which bit is bad?

Cheers. Nice to have context with these daily data dumps from himself.