>Your interpretation of the study is wrong (and probably shows your internal bias in this matter). They claim to be comparing efficacy of natural immunity to t

>Your interpretation of the study is wrong (and probably shows your internal bias in this matter). They claim to be comparing efficacy of natural immunity to that of vaccination, but they're not. They're not really "measuring" prior natural immunity at all, but just assuming it's there. How's that misinterpreted? That's not even close to "not a perfect study". Yet it's being presented, like here, as evidence against the efficacy of natural immunity, which is something it's not, and as being applicable to the general public, when the sample population is self-selected to be only the sickest of the sick (2 hospital visits in a year).