[alexandre_m]

> You are not giving a metric here so I can not tell why you think it is better

The studies:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/8/1420/6556183

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8627252/

There are many more.

Several 2021–2022 studies, especially Delta-focused, suggested natural immunity provided robust or superior protection against reinfection compared to two-dose vaccination alone.

[davorak]

> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

> https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/8/1420/6556183

> https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8627252/

or [x], [y], [z] for ease.

I read the abstract and conclusion of all three, none of them talk about natural immunity with no vaccination being the "winning path" like Scott Adams did. None of them talk about getting covid before getting vaccinated(maybe only optionally) as a better or safer path, not in the abstract or conclusions at least.

[alexandre_m]

[1] essentially says that there is no value for people who got infected by SARS CoV-2 to get vaccinated:

"our findings suggest that once an individual has fully recovered from initial infection, prior SARS CoV-2 infection protects against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its related negative outcomes. Moreover, the level of effectiveness seemed similar in both the recovered and fully vaccinated cohorts. With a paucity of vaccine doses, this should be one of several aspects that should be considered when deciding whether or not to prioritize vaccination of previously infected adults."

[alexandre_m]

In [3]:

"Nine clinical studies were identified, ..."

"All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity."