zlacker

> natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines.

This claim is directly contradicted in the paper you linked:

> The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 46.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.5 to 51.9).

...

> The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 52.2% (95% CI, 48.1 to 55.9).

>>stonog+(OP)
Those confidence intervals overlap. You're cherry picking one plot, for one outcome, for one vaccine, out of the entire paper, and it's not refuting the conclusion of the paper.

>>timr+34
if they overlap, how do you support your statement that the opposite is true?

>>ImPost+Ga
"natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines."

GP is citing a part of the paper where they show...that natural infection is statistically indistinguishable from 3 doses. QED.