I'm perhaps being hyperbolic when I say widely criticized, but here's one critical take: https://twitter.com/DGBassani/status/1431390188924768269

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.

> 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.

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.

yes, the studies show it's better .. in a 6 month time frame.

after that, who knows?