A big theme that I see in all of this is the fact that we have public health officials making proclamations with high certainty like "Natural immunity is inferi

A big theme that I see in all of this is the fact that we have public health officials making proclamations with high certainty like "Natural immunity is inferior to vaccine induced immunity and therefore you need to get vaxxed even if you recovered from a previous infection" in a specific area of study that is ongoing and in constant flux. It's clear to me that we are only scratching the surface of understanding the immune system. Maybe they are right when they say this, but I don't know, and I strongly suspect the scientists don't know yet either, considering how much research is still on-going. I was being told with absolute certainty by friends that natural immunity is less effective than the vaccines, while simultaneously a high-N longitudinal study from Israel is showing a rate of reinfection far lower amongst previously infected vs. breakthrough infections in the vaccinated. I think that the certainty of this conclusion is driven by antibody measurements, but not taking into account some of the things this study is mentioning, like memory T-cells. One of the assumptions that is pretty baked into the public health folks that the scientists are definitely not certain about is the spike protein being the ideal binding target for MRNA vaccines. This article is indicating that they are searching for other targets to create a vaccine that functions, in effect, like what this initial one was SUPPOSED to do: Not be leaky. My suspicion is that the second generation COVID vaccine will be a one and done shot, with no boosters needed. At least I hope so.