This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Vaccine immunity isn’t based on assumptions. by ndroman21

It’s being continuously studied in the continuing trials.

Your statement that natural immunity is usually “better” than vaccine induced immunity relies on a pretty big assumption that this is also true for COVID.

I’m not certain if natural immunity is being studied the same way as vaccine induced immunity.. I suspect it is, but it’s more challenging and, as far as I know, we don’t have any clinical results at all similar to what we have from the vaccine trial studies.

If we do, I’d love to read about them and have the guidance change.