> This is shifting the goal. The disclaimers I cited come directly from the study and are highly relevant when comparing the effect of natural immunity vs vacci

> This is shifting the goal. The disclaimers I cited come directly from the study and are highly relevant when comparing the effect of natural immunity vs vaccination. No, it isn't. It's clarifying that there's a great big forest here, lest we get lost in the details of the spots on the bark beetles in one particular tree. The immunity granted by prior infection is at least on par with that of vaccination. Moreover, I quoted directly from the study to explain why short-term squiggles in the lines at the bottom of the graph aren't worth dwelling upon: the vaccines are getting worse over time (against symptomatic infection), and the effect of natural immunity is gaining importance. This is exactly as you would expect for a virus that has evolved to partially escape the vaccine. Regardless, these are minor differences. You can't reasonably argue that vaccination has a definitive advantage over natural infection. We should be counting both.