COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.]
Then you are clearly anti-science, because based on the data from the CDC, natural immunity is more robust than the vaccine. Are you suggesting the data from the CDC is wrong?
The CDC's report is (mostly) fine. The problem is on your end, because you appear to not understand it.
This seems to mirror the information released from Israel a few months back.
https://www.reuters.com/business/he...vaccination-during-delta-surge-us-2022-01-19/
Source link from CDC:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff
and to highlight: During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone.
By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.
First, you apparently completely ignored the sentence before the one you highlighted. This one:
Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone.
This should tell you that the conclusion is clearly
not that vaccination isn't more effective than natural immunity in preventing infection, because that data indicates that actually it
can be and, the data indicates, was, before Delta. As the discussion section states again, "Case rates were initially lowest among vaccinated persons without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis". So that indicates which is more effective, in terms of case rates between cohorts, depends on factors like the timing and variant.
You should also consider that infection-induced immunity can vary depending on the individual and infection, whereas vaccine-induced immunity tends to be more consistent (given standardised dosing). That is, the group, 'people with a previous infection' might, overall, have good protection, but
individuals in that group may have very little. Because infection-induced immunity varies a lot depending on the individual and the infection; some people will have next to no protection against reinfection. So when considering the best approach, you need to account not just for rates across the group, but the range of immune responses in individuals in those groups. Vaccination response also varies between individuals but it tends to offer a more consistent response, because it has consistent dosing and intervals to achieve that.
In other words, you wouldn't even use this data to draw the conclusion you're trying to draw; case rates between cohorts alone is not sufficient to do that.
You've also apparently either ignored or not understood the limitations of the study, including in particular that "persons with undiagnosed infection are misclassified as having no previous COVID-19 diagnosis" and "uncertainty in the population size of the unvaccinated group without a previous COVID-19 diagnosis", as well as that "this analysis did not ascertain receipt of additional or booster COVID-19 vaccine doses and was conducted before many persons were eligible or had received additional or booster vaccine doses, which have been shown to confer additional protection", and that "this analysis was conducted before the emergence of the Omicron variant, for which vaccine or infection-derived immunity might be diminished."
And, glaringly, you've also ignored the conclusion of the report:
Although the epidemiology of COVID-19 might change as new variants emerge,
vaccination remains the safest strategy for averting future SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, long-term sequelae, and death. Primary vaccination, additional doses, and booster doses are recommended for all eligible persons.
You're claiming the CDC have got it right, but you're simply disregarding their own conclusions, that everyone eligible should be fully vaccinated. That should be a glaring red flag to you that you haven't fully grasped it.
In other words, you've seen the report, taken one cherry-picked sentence, ignored the rest, and failed to understand the meaning of the report as a result. Don't do that.