This [0] is the paper in the fifth citation from the parent's article. It seems to come to similiar conclusions, but, like the parent's article, doesn't assess any real world data, just lab conditions and inferences.
I urge everyone reading this to remind themselves of the specific language used in these articles -- they don't actually know whether these correlates they're observing are affecting immunity, just one component of what we consider to be a single aspect of an appropriate immune response in a blood sample.
Does my linked article, above and in a different thread, also measure blood sample conditions? Absolutely. But the article I linked directly analyses (spike protein) antibody levels -- an appropriate immune response in a blood sample -- while the articles here examine inferred T cell presence. One is a direct measure of something straightforward, and the other an inferential examination of something complex.
Excluding these people from the initial trials makes perfect sense to me. The various understood complications of COVID, like blood clots or minor strokes, could have been mistaken for consequences of vaccination.
Why do you suppose that there aren't any papers being generated on the topic of the recovered-from-COVID who get vaccines?
>Obviously spike protein antibodies are not the be-all and end-all of immunity to SARS-CoV-2, or we would not be observing relatively robust immunity even among recovered individuals who've had their antibody levels wane
No, but serum antibody levels against the methods viruses use to hijack our cells is a long, storied, well-understood and widely-accepted means of assessing overall systemic immune response to whatever the antibodies are against, in a way that third-order inferences about T cells aren't.
"Ruining" may be too strong a word but something like this has already been observed with the second Pfizer dose: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.22.436441v1