I came to a similar conclusion to you. There is some theoretical risk of antigenic sin, so getting a vaccine could reduce resistance to some future virus. I also remembered that it could theoretically increase resistance to a future virus, as in the cowpox/smallpox case, or the SARS/MERS/COVID-19 case.
My estimate was that the positive effect should outweigh the negative effect, because I learned about smallpox at school, and I learned about antigenic sin on Wikipedia, so the school thing is probably a bigger deal. Unclear by how much. Given everything else, that was sufficient for me to get vaccinated and boosted.
Also, catching a virus can cause antigenic sin, it’s not specific to vaccines. Unlike a vaccine, covid is not designed to reduce that risk. So if your infection risk without the next dose is >X then you reduce risk by getting the next dose. Where X is maybe 10% but I don’t actually know.
I also endorse “even if it did it’d be worth it” as a counterargument. If arguments are soldiers then this attacks the hypothesis where it is weakest: the “so what” weakness. You don’t seem to like this, but I do.
Another counterargument that I predict you won’t like: you’re specifically asking for counterarguments to a “troubling” and “Faustian” hypothesis. Maybe you have some confirmation bias, and you’ve already made your decision? If so, the evidence you’ve already seen was good enough for you to decide, so it can also be good enough for you to accept.
The scenario that worries me most is unprecedentedly homogenous immune responses worldwide.
Between multiple strains and multiple vaccines and varying vaccination rates and breakthrough infections I think there’s lots of variation worldwide. I’d expect to see more homogenous immune responses to Measles, say, where there’s a high vaccination rate, a low infection rate, and fewer vaccines.
I came to a similar conclusion to you. There is some theoretical risk of antigenic sin, so getting a vaccine could reduce resistance to some future virus. I also remembered that it could theoretically increase resistance to a future virus, as in the cowpox/smallpox case, or the SARS/MERS/COVID-19 case.
My estimate was that the positive effect should outweigh the negative effect, because I learned about smallpox at school, and I learned about antigenic sin on Wikipedia, so the school thing is probably a bigger deal. Unclear by how much. Given everything else, that was sufficient for me to get vaccinated and boosted.
Also, catching a virus can cause antigenic sin, it’s not specific to vaccines. Unlike a vaccine, covid is not designed to reduce that risk. So if your infection risk without the next dose is >X then you reduce risk by getting the next dose. Where X is maybe 10% but I don’t actually know.
I also endorse “even if it did it’d be worth it” as a counterargument. If arguments are soldiers then this attacks the hypothesis where it is weakest: the “so what” weakness. You don’t seem to like this, but I do.
Another counterargument that I predict you won’t like: you’re specifically asking for counterarguments to a “troubling” and “Faustian” hypothesis. Maybe you have some confirmation bias, and you’ve already made your decision? If so, the evidence you’ve already seen was good enough for you to decide, so it can also be good enough for you to accept.
Between multiple strains and multiple vaccines and varying vaccination rates and breakthrough infections I think there’s lots of variation worldwide. I’d expect to see more homogenous immune responses to Measles, say, where there’s a high vaccination rate, a low infection rate, and fewer vaccines.