None of the other links indicate infection-acquired immunity is more robust or longer lasting than vaccine-acquired. Only that there is some lasting immunity in some people.
true, none of the other links are directly comparative to vaccine efficacy. my claim is in the context that _other_ studies show vaccine efficacy drops off after 6 months.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows...
overall im trying to make 2 points
1. many (all?) of the vaccine efficacy studies omit data for candidates who received the vaccine 6+ months prior to the time of study.
2. the vaccine is redundant for those with prior infection.
Or take a quote from this article: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
>“The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune.
I don't think your point 2. should be taken for granted. From the conclusion of the contested study:
>Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
we've officially come full circle!
my original complaint is that these studies all baseline against candidates that were vaccinated within the 6 months prior to publishing.
the gained improvement is already marginal in this scenario, but if the improvement diminishes even further, then it's hard to justify a mandate.
after that, who knows?