>There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends

>There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place. Logical arguments for a position don't equate to empirical truths. Data is preferred over argument/opinion. >Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies). Do you have any evidence that the study you linked to is biased? If so, why even link to it? In any case, I think this thread is not going anywhere, so I will just let you have the last word.