Wtf? I must be misinterpreting the data, otherwise this article raises VERY disturbing questions, if I have read the summary correctly.

Three data points:

1. Natural infection efficacy: not studied or stated (why? Study flawed from start, assuming vaccines are always better, no matter what?)

2. Natural infection, AND then full vaccine course

3. Only fully vaccinated efficacy.

It appears that the vaccine is better than natural Immunity AND the vaccine.

Which begs the question, how effective is natural infection?

Only by answering this question can it be determined if vaccines are destroying natural Immunity, or if natural Immunity is preventing vaccines from working.

A VERY inconvenient question indeed. No wonder it wasn't asked.