ultralite

I expect it works both ways: I expect a weak natural immunity to COVID-19 would have been considered a political loss to some.

I don't have sufficient expertise on the matter to hold strong positions either way.

The BBC in this case were covering research by Imperial College London, one of the leading contributors to UK COVID-19 research.

In Oct 2020, if someone saw https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54696873 and commented, as you just have, "The media is not a recognised scientific body.", what would you have said?

> No-one credible ever denied that it was possible or even that it was likely that people would gain natural immunity.

Let's not rewrite history. It was clear that the media (e.g. BBC, below) chose to amplify messages that discredited natural immunity.

[Prof Wendy Barclay said:] "On the balance of evidence, I would say it would look as if immunity declines away at the same rate as antibodies decline away, and that this is an indication of waning immunity."

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54696873 Oct 2020.

Natural immunity was used as a justification for some societal responses, particularly by some on one side of the political spectrum.

Thus, some of those on the opposite side will interpret strong natural immunity to COVID-19 as a political loss.

Isn't this the sort of study and conclusion that would give weight to "herd immunity"?

To you, is there any study/conclusion that would allow us to propose solutions like "herd immunity"?