> The protective effect of prior infection is not uncertain, nor is it changing. There have been dozens of papers now, all saying the same thing: natural infection is at least as protective (if not more so) than even 3 doses of the current vaccines.
I was saying that natural infection is equivalent to vaccination -- if not better. Then, in the same comment, I explicitly said that none of this will prevent re-infection:
> Norway is saying what it is, because we know that most people -- vaccinated or previously infected -- will eventually get re-infected. But even if you are re-infected, you will be well-protected against severe illness.
Did people originally overstate the claim that vaccination would prevent infection? Absolutely. Do we now know this to be untrue? Again, absolutely. You're going to be re-infected multiple times in your life. Cannot be helped.
But it's still true that infection and vaccination offer at least equivalent levels of protection. So if you're concerned about the protection of "natural immunity" -- by whatever standard -- then I have bad news for you: the vaccines are no better.