CR: COVID-19 --Political Talk

[GreenspointTexas 9,933]

The pandemic is over. Not necessarily because its literally over, but because mask wearing is pretty much done most places and precautions arent really being taken most places anymore.

 

im not spiking the football, just saying that it seems almost everyone is done with covid at this point

[Biff Tannen 46,061]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

a lot to like here. 

[Biff Tannen 46,061]

9 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

Masks are no longer needed because the only people they protect nowadays are the insane anti vaxers who would rather die than admit they were stupid to Own the Libs.

Thats psychopathic. 

 

11 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

The pandemic is over. Not necessarily because its literally over, but because mask wearing is pretty much done most places and precautions arent really being taken most places anymore.

 

im not spiking the football, just saying that it seems almost everyone is done with covid at this point

And yet Rand Paul still had to go and lie to people yesterday saying that masks don't work.  Always be lying.

[Guest Lobo]

11 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

The pandemic is over. Not necessarily because its literally over, but because mask wearing is pretty much done most places and precautions arent really being taken most places anymore.

 

im not spiking the football, just saying that it seems almost everyone is done with covid at this point

I agree for the most part.  I still worry about two groups though---healthcare workers that are just beyond beat at this point.  Even when their bodies finally catch a breather...they're gonna be dealing with mental exhaustion, stress, possibly stimulant addictions, neglecting their own personal lives, etc. for years to come.  We need to take care of the people who took care of us.  I had a real fucked up first two full days of this shit a couple weeks back where I couldn't even drink water until the 3rd day (I would just projective vomit it out to the point of pretty severe dehydration).  I was strongly considering going to a clinic or hospital to get at least get an IV and check the rest of my shit to see what was coming next.  But I decided not to because I didn't want to take up a bed and a nurse for somebody who was having trouble breathing (I DO MY OWN RESEARCH...and what I found was you can survive longer without water than you can without oxygen...I'm pretty smart like that).  

The other group is, we still have 70 million obese adults over 50 in this country.  That's still a lot of susceptibility for a group that I'm guessing is still probably 35% un-vacc'd.  If they want to fuck around and find out, I'll gladly take off my mask and go back to eating indoors.  But what happens after that is on them.  I did my part and a whole lot more. 

We're 80% done with it in our house in terms of mitigation and lifestyle changes...but little things keep me skeptical about how many more we gotta bury.  Was in Randall's on Ben White the other day grabbing water for the boilpocalypse.  Was wearing a mask, just muscle memory for me at this point.  And it's a less educated part of town so crowd was maybe 20% masked.  It's been months since anybody's said anything to me about a mask, but this guy couldn't help himself.  Gave me a sideways look and said, "Still wearing a mask huh?  Things are worthless.  If you're healthy like me, that bug ain't gonna do anything to ya!  Don't be so worried"  His tone wasn't mean or confrontational, you could tell he was sorta saying it to convince himself, not me.  Well, he would have a decent point about being in good health to avoid illness, but he was probably 55-60, not morbidly obese but damn obese, and riding a fucking motorized store cart.  Until that kinda idiotic mentality is flushed, we ain't spiking shit.  

[Don Johnson 4,802]

28 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

The pandemic is over. Not necessarily because its literally over, but because mask wearing is pretty much done most places and precautions arent really being taken most places anymore.

 

im not spiking the football, just saying that it seems almost everyone is done with covid at this point

[Brisketexan 106,618]

7 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

a lot to like here. 

Again.....the MAGAts can sometimes get SO close to actually getting it.......but then walk right past it.

[MC Fresh Breath 4,075]

Oregon indoor mask mandate and masking in schools to end March 31.  

[DDD Dad 14,571]

 
Oh, 
 
Well, he "admitted" it.  certainly no reason to lie...
 
 
[mention=291]wildcat09[/mention]
Now do PDX and SEA protests.  
You know where your comrades cemented buildings shut before lighting them on fire.

Antifa!

False Flag!

I had both on my bingo board.

[lemonlime 5,503]

38 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

The pandemic is over. Not necessarily because its literally over, but because mask wearing is pretty much done most places and precautions arent really being taken most places anymore.

 

im not spiking the football, just saying that it seems almost everyone is done with covid at this point

Someone should tell health care workers and cancer patients this.  So basically, you're saying Covid is over because we're in a country of raging assholes who can't even put a fucking mask on to go to the grocery store, like that's some huge imposition.  2700 more people died yesterday in the US, on top of the over 900k that died in the last 2 years from Covid.  But it's over because we say so.

This is all I hear when the right wing talks nowadays:

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4,075]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Again.....the MAGAts can sometimes get SO close to actually getting it.......but then walk right past it.

Yep. That’s a common one that shows up in r/hermancainawards.  Then again the same folks use tech they don’t understand to say they won’t get vaxxed with things they don’t understand.

[jimmyjazz 46,972]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Again.....the MAGAts can sometimes get SO close to actually getting it.......but then walk right past it.

Well, he has a point.  If I catch diabetes because some dude in the checkout line next to me isn't keeping up with his insulin regimen, I'm gonna be pissed.

[HenryJames 67,116]

51 minutes ago, GreenspointTexas said:

im not spiking the football

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

I guess someone else is seeing the polling. 
 

 

[wildcat09 29,556]

1 hour ago, GreenspointTexas said:

The pandemic is over. Not necessarily because its literally over, but because mask wearing is pretty much done most places and precautions arent really being taken most places anymore.

 

im not spiking the football, just saying that it seems almost everyone is done with covid at this point

Except for the ~2,600 dying each day and 150,000+ more hospitalized. 

[formermav43 4,607]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

I agree for the most part.  I still worry about two groups though---healthcare workers that are just beyond beat at this point.  Even when their bodies finally catch a breather...they're gonna be dealing with mental exhaustion, stress, possibly stimulant addictions, neglecting their own personal lives, etc. for years to come.  We need to take care of the people who took care of us.  I had a real fucked up first two full days of this shit a couple weeks back where I couldn't even drink water until the 3rd day (I would just projective vomit it out to the point of pretty severe dehydration).  I was strongly considering going to a clinic or hospital to get at least get an IV and check the rest of my shit to see what was coming next.  But I decided not to because I didn't want to take up a bed and a nurse for somebody who was having trouble breathing (I DO MY OWN RESEARCH...and what I found was you can survive longer without water than you can without oxygen...I'm pretty smart like that).  

The other group is, we still have 70 million obese adults over 50 in this country.  That's still a lot of susceptibility for a group that I'm guessing is still probably 35% un-vacc'd.  If they want to fuck around and find out, I'll gladly take off my mask and go back to eating indoors.  But what happens after that is on them.  I did my part and a whole lot more. 

90+% of those over 50 have received at least one dose. 80% between 50-64,  90% 65-74, and 85% of 75+ are fully vaccinated. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4,075]

Quote

One Million Deaths: The Hole the Pandemic Made in U.S. Society
Covid-19 has been directly responsible for most of the fatalities, but the disease is also unraveling families and communities in subtler ways

https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-million-deaths-the-hole-the-pandemic-made-in-u-s-society-11643662159

 

It is a long read.

 

[Dahobbs 18,185]

41 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I guess someone else is seeing the polling. 
 

 

Or he just sees the data? Why does this have to be polling related? It looks like a reasonable take based upon existing data. I swear, some of you think that because someone supported mask mandates in May of 2020 or even November of 2021, that the person has to support them forever. It's just odd. 

[Biff Tannen 46,061]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Or he just sees the data? Why does this have to be polling related? It looks like a reasonable take based upon existing data. I swear, some of you think that because someone supported mask mandates in May of 2020 or even November of 2021, that the person has to support them forever. It's just odd. 

It's not odd.  They are disingenuous fuck sticks that only see things in terms of teams.

[babysdaddy 2,731]

18 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Or he just sees the data? Why does this have to be polling related? It looks like a reasonable take based upon existing data. I swear, some of you think that because someone supported mask mandates in May of 2020 or even November of 2021, that the person has to support them forever. It's just odd. 

It is totally reasonable.  But when he follows it up with this tweet:

 

 

 

ithe only response I have for it is 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

44 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

It is totally reasonable.  But when he follows it up with this tweet:

 

 

 

ithe only response I have for it is 

Both of those tweets are reasonable. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Or he just sees the data? Why does this have to be polling related? It looks like a reasonable take based upon existing data. I swear, some of you think that because someone supported mask mandates in May of 2020 or even November of 2021, that the person has to support them forever. It's just odd. 

The data has been out there for a while regarding natural immunity. What’s changed is so many of his constituents finally contracted Covid so now it matters. Politics. 
 

1 hour ago, babysdaddy said:

It is totally reasonable.  But when he follows it up with this tweet:

 

 

 

ithe only response I have for it is 

Yeah Ted is so science and data based that he supports statewide school mask mandates for k-12. Maybe there’s another reason he supports that? 🤔 

 

23 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Both of those tweets are reasonable. 

In what alternate universe are Democrats like Gavin Newsom leading the way in returning America safely back to normal again? They’re the stragglers. 

Edited February 8, 2022 by Immaculate Vibes

[JimmyJames 12,271]

9 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

 

 

In what alternate universe are Democrats like Gavin Newsom leading the way in returning America safely back to normal again? They’re the stragglers. 

I guess by by not posting anti vax bullshit all over the net like you like to do? That’s a start anyway.

[workswithseed 2,201]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I guess by by not posting anti vax bullshit all over the net like you like to do? That’s a start anyway.

I've been called antivax for not going into a place that asked for my vaccine status. I don't really give a shit what you call antivax.

[4th&Five 41,904]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've been called antivax for not going into a place that asked for my vaccine status. I don't really give a shit what you call antivax.

[Dahobbs 18,185]

17 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

The data has been out there for a while regarding natural immunity. What’s changed is so many of his constituents finally contracted Covid so now it matters. Politics. 

By all means, point to the first instance where we had sufficient data that showed natural immunity was at least as protective as vaccination. We certainly suspected it would be protective, but the studies were very much mixed early (partly due to insufficient data). It wasn't until I want to say the fall or early winter of 2021 that more robust evidence got published. The CDC just now made the change and his tweet is predicated on that change. That's exactly how the process is supposed to work. The CDC provides the scientific information and the politicians use that information in determining policy. 

[Foosters 18,224]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've been called antivax for not going into a place that asked for my vaccine status. I don't really give a shit what you call antivax.

I call people who spend 14 months posting false information on public websites about the safety of vaccines "antivax."

[Dahobbs 18,185]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've been called antivax for not going into a place that asked for my vaccine status. I don't really give a shit what you call antivax.

How do you define antivax? 

[lemonlime 5,503]

11 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've been called antivax for not going into a place that asked for my vaccine status. I don't really give a shit what you call antivax.

Are you 2?  Whining about both being asked vaccine status during a pandemic that has already killed nearly a million Americans. And whining about being called "anitvax."  The modern GOP is just a whiny 2 year old having a temper tantrum and crying because people are such big meanies.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

17 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've been called antivax for not going into a place that asked for my vaccine status. I don't really give a shit what you call antivax.

Good for you. 
 

I do give a shit about online trolls who post constantly for months bullshit propaganda designed to poison the well on the vaccine thus killing thousands of people.

But I guess that’s just me. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I call people who spend 14 months posting false information on public websites about the safety of vaccines "antivax."

Yeah but that’s also called “cancel culture.” So it’s a bad thing. 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,164]

46 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

I've been called antivax for not going into a place that asked for my vaccine status. I don't really give a shit what you call antivax.

Why are you trying to cancel businesses that ask for vax status?

[workswithseed 2,201]

10 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

Why are you trying to cancel businesses that ask for vax status?

Cause cancel culture exists.

46 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Are you 2?  Whining about both being asked vaccine status during a pandemic that has already killed nearly a million Americans. And whining about being called "anitvax."  The modern GOP is just a whiny 2 year old having a temper tantrum and crying because people are such big meanies.

Wah, why didn't you just go in? 

[Incredulity 11,861]

18 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

What a totally fucked up viewpoint about all that. Psychopathic. 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/02/03/moe-says-covid-19-restrictions-on-peoples-freedoms-will-end-in-saskatchewan.html

“COVID is not ending, but government restrictions on your rights and freedoms — those will be ending, and ending very soon,” Moe said in a four-minute video posted Wednesday night on social media.

 

Go get your fucking shinebox.

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,079]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

By all means, point to the first instance where we had sufficient data that showed natural immunity was at least as protective as vaccination. We certainly suspected it would be protective, but the studies were very much mixed early (partly due to insufficient data). It wasn't until I want to say the fall or early winter of 2021 that more robust evidence got published. The CDC just now made the change and his tweet is predicated on that change. That's exactly how the process is supposed to work. The CDC provides the scientific information and the politicians use that information in determining policy. 

There's not enough name-calling and poo-flinging in this post, therefore it'll go over many people's heads

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

By all means, point to the first instance where we had sufficient data that showed natural immunity was at least as protective as vaccination. We certainly suspected it would be protective, but the studies were very much mixed early (partly due to insufficient data). It wasn't until I want to say the fall or early winter of 2021 that more robust evidence got published. The CDC just now made the change and his tweet is predicated on that change. That's exactly how the process is supposed to work. The CDC provides the scientific information and the politicians use that information in determining policy. 

Who determines what evidence is “sufficient”? The CDC? I guess that’s one of their jobs, but they still recommend masking down to 2 year old with no evidence sooooo
 

This thread doesn’t need an entire rehashing of the evidence, but since almost the beginning of the pandemic there have been studies show good antibody durability after infection. Some other notable events. 

Oxford study last March. https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/news/article.aspx?id=1512

Cleveland clinic study last June

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

Israeli study in August 

There’s other NHS stuff buried that I don’t feel like digging up.

Other countries have acknowledged it. 

If you’ve been following along here there’s been a growing number of posters that understood this for a  while. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,079]

masks and vaccines fucking work, end of story. to say otherwise is helping to prolong the pandemic. the end.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

46 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/02/03/moe-says-covid-19-restrictions-on-peoples-freedoms-will-end-in-saskatchewan.html

“COVID is not ending, but government restrictions on your rights and freedoms — those will be ending, and ending very soon,” Moe said in a four-minute video posted Wednesday night on social media.

 

Go get your fucking shinebox.

 

You know I don’t shine shoes anymore Billy. 
 

Keep him here Henry! 

[workswithseed 2,201]

32 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

masks and vaccines fucking work, end of story. to say otherwise is helping to prolong the pandemic. the end.

Sure, but we're also never going to zero. 

[babysdaddy 2,731]

27 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

masks and vaccines fucking work, end of story. to say otherwise is helping to prolong the pandemic. the end.

Depends on your definition of work.

Certain masks (95s) are effective at limiting the spread.  Every cloth or surgical mask you see being worn at this point in time is pointless.

mRNA Vaccines turn covid into a cold.  They are not stopping the spread of the disease.  Certain other vaccines are ineffective against the Omicron variant. 

 

[jimmyjazz 46,972]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Sure, but we're also never going to zero. 

Wut?  

Damn, I need to revise my predictions.  Thanks for the info.

[Biff Tannen 46,061]

Holy shit.  You guys really are going to just pretend that Covid was the Dem's fault and it was never a big deal aren't you?  

[Brisketexan 106,618]

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Holy shit.  You guys really are going to just pretend that Covid was the Dem's fault and it was never a big deal aren't you?  

You 100% knew this was the end-game for them.  It was never anything BUT that.

[wildcat09 29,556]

10 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Holy shit.  You guys really are going to just pretend that Covid was the Dem's fault and it was never a big deal aren't you?  

No, give them a little time and they'll get around to pretending it was the Dem's fault and that Dems should be executed for it.

[Don Johnson 4,802]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

By all means, point to the first instance where we had sufficient data that showed natural immunity was at least as protective as vaccination. We certainly suspected it would be protective, but the studies were very much mixed early (partly due to insufficient data). It wasn't until I want to say the fall or early winter of 2021 that more robust evidence got published. The CDC just now made the change and his tweet is predicated on that change. That's exactly how the process is supposed to work. The CDC provides the scientific information and the politicians use that information in determining policy. 

Was it harder to study immunity from prior infection than it was to study vaccine effectiveness?  I have never participated in a medical study or obviously run one, so honestly have no idea.  For a layman it seems like those studies would've been able to be done at numerous stages of the pandemic, all sooner than any vaccine studies.  Pretty early on, we adopted the 90 day rule for immunity from prior infection and just said beyond that we don't know and never reported anything different until recently.

But we knew almost right away that Moderna/Pfizer worked well for about 6 months, we knew exactly how effective they were vs. infection, hospitalization and death.  We knew %'s on when they started to wane and by how much per month.  Then we had similar data vs. delta. Then we had similar data on boosters.  Could similar studies not have been done on prior infection, but starting months prior?

In a pandemic, it seems like immunity from prior infection would be the very first thing we would want to know and that studying it wouldn't take anything from the focus on vaccinations.  But there's an ocean of things I don't know and maybe this wasn't possible for some reason.

I've always wondered why we've never seen data on second infections, the likelihood and the severity.  

[Dahobbs 18,185]

2 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Who determines what evidence is “sufficient”? The CDC? I guess that’s one of their jobs, but they still recommend masking down to 2 year old with no evidence sooooo
 

This thread doesn’t need an entire rehashing of the evidence, but since almost the beginning of the pandemic there have been studies show good antibody durability after infection. Some other notable events. 

Oxford study last March. https://www.ouh.nhs.uk/news/article.aspx?id=1512

Cleveland clinic study last June

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v2

Israeli study in August 

There’s other NHS stuff buried that I don’t feel like digging up.

Other countries have acknowledged it. 

If you’ve been following along here there’s been a growing number of posters that understood this for a  while. 

Thank you for illustrating my point. The evidence has been building to generate confidence that prior infection provides robust protection from serious illness. Early on in the pandemic, through 2020, we suspected that was the case but did not know it. And in fact, we had evidence that vaccination was significantly superior at preventing new infections compared to prior infection at least as it related to the original strain of the virus. This changed with the rise of Delta and Omicron and new studies from August (you cited) and at the end of last year confirmed that. As a result, the CDC made its change. You could argue that the CDC could have changed its criteria at the end of the summer, and I think you'd probably be right. But waiting for additional data, especially given the rise of Omicron, wasn't unreasonable. And the truth is that vaccination is so simple, cheap, and safe that there was little reason to rush. 

53 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Was it harder to study immunity from prior infection than it was to study vaccine effectiveness?  I have never participated in a medical study or obviously run one, so honestly have no idea.  For a layman it seems like those studies would've been able to be done at numerous stages of the pandemic, all sooner than any vaccine studies.  Pretty early on, we adopted the 90 day rule for immunity from prior infection and just said beyond that we don't know and never reported anything different until recently.

But we knew almost right away that Moderna/Pfizer worked well for about 6 months, we knew exactly how effective they were vs. infection, hospitalization and death.  We knew %'s on when they started to wane and by how much per month.  Then we had similar data vs. delta. Then we had similar data on boosters.  Could similar studies not have been done on prior infection, but starting months prior?

In a pandemic, it seems like immunity from prior infection would be the very first thing we would want to know and that studying it wouldn't take anything from the focus on vaccinations.  But there's an ocean of things I don't know and maybe this wasn't possible for some reason.

I've always wondered why we've never seen data on second infections, the likelihood and the severity.  

Yes. It is easier to study something you control (injecting someone with a vaccine) than something you don't (someone getting infected). There are studies that involve the intentional infection of participants (challenge studies), but those raise thorny ethical issues.

Here is a recent challenge study on Covid-19 (and according to the article the first such challenge study on Covid)

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/first-covid-19-human-challenge-study-yields-infection-clues

Ethical discussions on challenge discussions:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2106970

Quote

Human challenge studies (also called controlled human infection models), in which researchers intentionally administer an infectious agent to volunteers, have played major roles in vaccine and treatment development and in elucidation of pathogenesis and immunity. Such studies are not normally undertaken during a pandemic, however, and the potential risks and benefits of such research with SARS-CoV-2 in this setting have triggered widespread debate. While other commentators have made theoretical arguments for and against SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies, a consortium of academics, industry collaborators, and the British government (through the Human Challenge Programme of the U.K. Vaccines Taskforce) has now proceeded to address the technical and ethical considerations to enable such studies. The consortium’s practical application of ethical principles against a backdrop of rapidly emerging evidence carries lessons for future outbreaks.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6785344/

Quote

Human infection challenge studies (HCS) involve intentionally infecting research participants with pathogens, often with the ultimate aim of developing new interventions against infectious diseases. Despite ethical concerns about research involving vulnerable populations, there are both scientific and ethical reasons to consider conducting more HCS in low- and middle-income countries where neglected diseases are often endemic. HCS researchers can reduce the risks to participants (and the risks of transmission from participants to others) by controlling multiple factors (e.g. related to the laboratory environment, participant selection, the pathogen, and the timing of treatment); but HCS nonetheless raise important ethical issues, some of which may be particularly pertinent to HCS in endemic settings. This article provides background on HCS in general, as well as recent HCS in low- and middle-income countries, and an overview of the ethical issues associated with HCS in endemic settings.

 

[Don Johnson 4,802]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes. It is easier to study something you control (injecting someone with a vaccine) than something you don't (someone getting infected). There are studies that involve the intentional infection of participants (challenge studies), but those raise thorny ethical issues.

Here is a recent challenge study on Covid-19 (and according to the article the first such challenge study on Covid)

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2022/02/first-covid-19-human-challenge-study-yields-infection-clues

Ethical discussions on challenge discussions:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2106970

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6785344/

 

Rather than infecting someone, why wouldn't you just study volunteers who had an involuntary documented case and recovered?  

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

No, give them a little time and they'll get around to pretending it was the Dem's fault and that Dems should be executed for it.

It's China's fault.  

[Brisketexan 106,618]

Trading messages with the boy. He says he feels generally fine, mostly he’s bored.
But, the cute Dutch girl he’s friends with who lives downstairs is also positive, so maybe they can hang out together.
Pretty sure he has a crush on her, so I hope he guts up and makes a move.
Quarantine might be as long as ten days. If he tests negative soon, he can shorten it, but we’re not expecting that will happen at this rate.

[staboner 5,067]

tick tack toe what about them chinese dems doe

[Dahobbs 18,185]

Just now, Don Johnson said:

Rather than infecting someone, why wouldn't you just study volunteers who had an involuntary documented case and recovered?  

You can. But its difficult to control variables, making your data a lot less reliable. From the NEJM article I cited above:

Quote

Human challenge studies have features that cannot be replicated in natural infection studies. By eliminating confounders such as different viral strains and infectious doses, uncertain timing of exposure, and patient heterogeneity, investigators can identify protective host factors and immediate responses early during infection. By generating reliably high infection rates and permitting fine control of timing, challenge studies enable rapid direct comparisons of new vaccine candidates, revised regimens, and prophylactic, preemptive, or postsymptomatic treatments 

And I think people also underestimate how long studies take to complete. The vaccine studies were rushed as quickly as possible, and still took roughly a year from initial development to actual deployment. Prior to last summer, there was very little reliable information on the effectiveness of prior infections to provide protection from serious illness or recurrent infection. You had some preliminary information that went both ways. And then over the summer and the fall and going into the beginning of this year, a lot of results were published. 

Here is an example of some of our early information (from October 2020) https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mBio.02617-20:

Quote

The existence and nature of immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are currently unknown; however, neutralizing antibodies are thought to play the major role and data from studying other coronaviruses suggest that partial clinical immunity lasting up to 1 year will occur postinfection. We show how immunity, depending on its durability, may work with current social practices to limit the spread of the virus. We further show that a vaccine that is 50% effective and taken by 50% of the population will prevent further loss of life, providing that social distancing is still practiced and that immunity does not wane quickly.

IMPORTANCE The ability of our society to function effectively moving forward will depend on how the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is contained. Immunity to the virus will be critical to this equation.