Please re-read what I wrote: It's BS to call natural immunity superior for the reasons of being "natural" or because "vaccines only encode the spike protein".
There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place.
Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies).
>There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place.
Logical arguments for a position don't equate to empirical truths. Data is preferred over argument/opinion.
>Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies).
Do you have any evidence that the study you linked to is biased? If so, why even link to it?
In any case, I think this thread is not going anywhere, so I will just let you have the last word.
There is no black and white argument why natural immunity should be superior - it can be worse, similar or better than vaccine-induced immunity. It all depends on the amount of viral particles you were exposed to in the first place.
Any study that compares natural immunity to vaccine-induced has to deal with a selection bias (as stated in the quote by somebody who is a professional at designing such studies).
Let me know if that clears things up.