I use this because it defines the rarity of someone with NATURAL IMMUNITY being "reinfected". "Rare" as a word has proven to be quite elastic in discussions of Covid, you are correct.
Yes. And "adverse affects" of the vaccine are also very rare.
While you used the word, you QUOTED (well, posted a pic and circled it). The word "rare" was used by a third party. I'm not too bothered by how you use the word rare because you have not been using it incorrectly; I'm more hoping the consistency that the CDC has used the word would be evident.
It has not been "proven to be quite elastic" at all. To believe that the CDC would be "elastic" in their use of a word like that should show the reader that you are not understanding the full context.
For example:
Deaths LINKED to the COVID vaccine in the US are 3.
Yes. That's 3.
And to remind you: Those 3 blood clots were from the J&J vaccine (or was it Astrozeneca?) and you'll recall that the dispensation of those vaccines temporarily or altogether stopped. THAT'S how sensitive the threshold is.
Deaths linked to people who have RECEIVED the vaccine: 6300 or so; but no analyzed link.
6300, alone, sounds worrisome. But then you can remember that over 339 million DOSES have been put into arms suddenly that number should be laughably small (.00018%)
So let's compare:
339,000,000 ---> 6300
That is CRAZY rare; like, that fits the definition of of "rare" because, of the possible out comes, it is a very infrequent outcome.
At the same time, the COVID reticent indicated back in 2020 that "almost nobody under 60 EVER dies from this disease because it's just the flu".
Quick and dirty math shows that ABOUT 175,000 people age 64 and under died.
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex-and-Age/9bhg-hcku
I'm, sadly, too lazy to get the number of people under age 65 who have been infected with COVID but the TOTAL so far is 40million. To (imperfectly) compare, this will give you a LOWER (MORE rare) outcome but....
That works out to about 0.4% of the population under 65 who contracted COVID.
If you were to compare 0.4% and 0.00018%, a person should recognize thatsuggesting the relative incidents of both of these percentages are both "comparable" and both "rare", is really imprecise at best, but mostly just illogical. I mean, it's 2000x different.
The application of the word (or really concept) "rare" has shown to be terrifyingly inconsistent to folks who "haven't bought the COVID narrative". I wonder if there's a correlation in misunderstanding/misapplication of terms and reluctance to believe the science.