OP keeps posting articles pushing the idea that COVID-19 infection alone is sufficient to protect individuals.
The EU digital certificate is for - you had the vaccine - you had a negative result - you recovered from the virus.
Recovering from the virus gives you 180 days of certification. https://www.sns24.gov.pt/guia/certificado-digital-covid-da-u...
Source: I live here. Also, the government: https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-...
> People who have recovered – what to do
> You can get a COVID certificate if the COVID infection was confirmed with a positive PCR test and occurred no more than 180 days ago.
> You can request the COVID certificate from your cantonal authority using an online form. It will then be sent to you by post.
> Please note:
> As the COVID certificate is compatible with the EU Digital COVID Certificate, the standards applying to the EU certificate must also serve as a basis for the Swiss certificate. This means that a certificate is only issued to people who have recovered following a positive PCR test.
Many other countries are fine considering documented prior infection as equivalent to vaccination for compliance purposes. There are some results hinting infection-recovery alone is better than vaccination alone, especially versus later variants.
The US CDC etc seems slow-moving on key scientific results, in ways that are unnecessarily increasing social conflict. But they’re not even paid by the click!
—————————
It is pretty useful though. Studies have found it compares well with vaccines or better.
However like vaccines it also fades. And prior immunity + infection is way better than prior immunity, so being infected no reason not to get vaccinated.
My understanding was that there were many more studies of vaccine protection than immunity after infection.
Some links to those studies of immunity after infection would be greatly appreciated.
But there's more evidence for natural immunity, from the 1B+ people worldwide who've had COVID & recovered.
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
Prior COVID-19 protects against reinfection, even in the absence of detectable antibodies https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)002...
SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/
Risk of Reinfection After Seroconversion to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2): A Population-based Propensity-score Matched Cohort Study https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
Assessment of the Risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Reinfection in an Intense Reexposure Setting https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid...
Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258953702...
Association of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositive Antibody Test With Risk of Future Infection https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
Quantifying the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection over time https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34043841/
Longitudinal observation of antibody responses for 14 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8325385/
Persistence of neutralizing antibodies a year after SARS-CoV-2 infection https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.13.21260426v...
Antibody Responses 8 Months after Asymptomatic or Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7920668/
Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
I know we want to have a space here to freely discuss things without being dismissed, but I also think enough of us have managed enough websites to understand that this account shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'm not saying that they are a bot either. Their comments suggest otherwise. But this person has, after nearly three years on this site, decided that now is the time to start submitting articles to the front page, and all of them have been about the same politically controversial thing, so this person clearly has an agenda they are trying to push.
- A vaccination is currently a requirement for participating in society.
- There are studies showing that having the virues is just as effective (or more) than a vaccination.
- There are places where "having the vaccination" meets the requirement for participating in society.
And, from there, discussing why the US doesn't also follow this logic.
Now, I can't speak to the studies validity. And an argument can be made that it's harder to verify that someone has had the virus already or some such. Or one of any of a dozen other reasons "why not". But having a discussion of the "why not" seems perfectly reasonable.
You can even argue that they're not facts, that they're wrong... but the OP is coming from the viewpoint that they appear to be facts. And, as such, it seems the OP is posting in good faith.