While my figure of 3-6 months has been revised upward to 6, 8 or 10 months, the core sentiment of my post remains unchanged: Vaccine immunity is believed to be

While my figure of 3-6 months has been revised upward to 6, 8 or 10 months, the core sentiment of my post remains unchanged: Vaccine immunity is believed to be better. Vaccines are still believed to be good for 2-3 years based on how similar vaccines for other coronaviruses have worked. That is either enough time for the immune system's natural protection to atrophy, or for the virus to change. That still means vaccine immunity is likely to be more robust protection than natural immunity, even though the general sentiment seems to be a shrug for how long protection from the vaccine will actually last. [0] That's why they still exclusively discuss being fully vaccinated, and discount natural immunity. They believe it's better. Furthermore, I have seen no-one in the health community that has recommended not getting the vaccine if you've already had the virus. Compare this to, for example, chicken pox, where they only recommend the vaccine if you haven't had it. In the context of this thread where the comment I was responding to was trying to argue that natural immunity is being short-changed somehow, I think the sentiment I'm expressing is perfectly accurate regardless of how exact timelines have been shifted in the past year. You still need to get fully vaccinated even if you've had the disease. Nothing about that has changed. [0]: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13372 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.13372 -- This study was published this month