The Grim Reaper wrote:
Just so we're clear, we started out with you claiming the following:
You science-rejecters need to provide proof that immunity from any of the vaccines available will provide substantially better immunity than the body's natural immunity developed from exposure to the virus. Then you can claim people who have already recovered from Covid should also get vaccinated.
You now seem to be conceding that you were wrong, and that the "proof" that you were looking for had already been provided in this thread.
There is a difference between 'disputing' and 'addressing'.
Just so we're clear:
1. You are a liar. See non-quoted posts further above.
2. "You science-rejecters need to provide proof that immunity from any of the vaccines available will provide substantially better immunity than the body's natural immunity developed from exposure to the virus."
Where did I concede this was wrong? I think you are confused by some of the articles cited, and you (and others) somehow have been led to believe there is some linear response here. Like 50 more vaxx induced antibodies = 50 more immunity tokens. "This one goes to 11." The response appears or is predicted to be non-linear, otherwise they would be pound-vaxxing us every week.
If the Cleveland study (and the history of vaccines and basic common sense) is to be believed, there is a highly non-linear response in the human immune system. Think concepts like law of diminishing returns, or saturation curves with vaxx units on Y axis and immunity on X axis. That may help you conceptualize your errors.
What WE (you and I) do know, and what YOU have effectively conceded through YOUR complete inability to address and/or dispute it, is that " Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination." That is what WE - i.e,, YOU and I - do know, for now.