Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have seen little evidence that having previously had COVID gives you sterilizing immunity. Some evidence it gives you better immunity than the vaccine but now more evidence coming out that points to the vaccine being better.
Here are 100+ studies to that effect, https://brownstone.org/articles/79-research-studies-affirm-n...
> Such would be evidence of immunity that is equal to that of vaccination and the immunity should be provided the same societal status as any vaccine-induced immunity.
They advocate for infection having the same status as vaccination, which is reasonable, and the policies, at least in the west and in the countries I'm familiar with, they take previous infection into account.
> Again, the Marek’s disease in chickens and the vaccination situation explains what we are potentially facing with these leaky vaccines
Then they mention Marek's disease in a gross (yet common) misunderstanding of the causes of such scenario. Luckily, humans aren't stacked up onto each other in direct contact 24/7.
> This follow-up chart is the most updated and comprehensive library list of 139 of the highest-quality, complete, most robust scientific studies and evidence reports/position statements on natural immunity as compared to the COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and allow you to draw your own conclusion.
OK, let's go through a few:
1. Results are unbelievable (0 reinfections among +1000 people who expose themselves daily) but the methodology seems solid otherwise. No complaints.
2. In vitro, small sample.
3. Conveniently skips "When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated,"
4. Doesn't even talk about COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity.
5. Shows that vaccine antibody titers wane faster than natural immunity. Interesting given that previous studies from the list focus on how T/B-cell response is much better measure than antibody levels. Kinda moving goalposts, but OK.
6. Shows 1/10 reinfection rate among infected vs infection rate among general population (since the study is from February 2021, I'd say that's roughly 90% unvaccinated). Doesn't compare against vaccines, which was the original point of the list? Funnily it directly disproves the unbelievable numbers of study 1, and this looks equally solid.
7. Says previously infected may not need a second dose (conveniently skips that they may need one).
8. Doesn't compare with anything.
9. Titers at 5 months after infection, hardly interesting.
10. Immunoglobulin levels, 2020, hardly interesting, doesn't compare with anything..
From this point the list seems to decrease in relevance to the point, just showing that infection gives some immunity, which is hardly what anyone is arguing. Some just talk about measles (55), others about possible cross immunity (85, 109), but overall it feels more like a vague Google search than a curated list of anything.