>As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting.
What are you basing this on? I'm aware of one (unpublished, widely criticized) study with something like this conclusion that people like to throw around.
Evidence that natural immunity is long lasting and on par with the vaccine's initial levels of protection:
Oct 28, 2021
> Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were identified in 97% of COVID-19 convalescent donors at initial presentation. In follow-up analyses, of 116 donors presenting at repeat time points, 91.4% had detectable IgG levels up to 11 months after symptom recovery
> Model 1 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
> Model 2 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
> Model 3 ... found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
> The presence of IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid protein was associated with substantially reduced risk of reinfection in staff and residents for up to 10 months after primary infection.
> As with antibodies, the numbers of different immune cell types varied substantially between individuals. Neither gender nor differences in disease severity could account for this variability. However, 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection.
Your second link is the unpublished, widely criticized study I was referring to. Even taken at a face value, it does not indicate infection-acquired immunity is longer lasting, only more robust.
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.
i'm curious to learn more about the discussion and criticism surrounding the 2nd link, if you'd be so kind as to share such resources
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.
>“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.
I don't understand. Yes, many of the vaccine effectiveness studies are limited by the window of time they use. That's a separate issue from vaccines being redundant for previously infected people. Studies show that previously infected people still benefit from vaccination.
What are you basing this on? I'm aware of one (unpublished, widely criticized) study with something like this conclusion that people like to throw around.