No, it's not. The very linked article and many others agree that people exposed to both scenarios have more effective, longer lasting immunity than the ones affected by either scenario individually.
And the adverse effect risk of a vaccine is not a lottery. At this point with billions of people vaccinated around the world, the risk profiles are pretty accurate, the side effects very well known and unless you are a kid under 18, all vaccines being widely distributed in western countries - which are the ones I cared to do any research on - are effectively zero risk.
No. With out no strictly mandated reporting of AEFIs, billions of administrated doses cannot indicate a safety profile..
Even with around 1% events reported, the serious events are around 1 in 5000
They are not. They are like 1 in 5000 (still based on volutary reporting)
https://www.medsafe.govt.nz/COVID-19/vaccine-report-overview...
The risk of hospitalisation/death wasn’t zero. And yet… they chose COVID through inaction.
And for what?
“I am not an anti-vaxxer but was holding out” spells “I am an anti-vaxxer but I lucked out”.
And, in the early days, there was no vaccine.
In the middle days, the vaccines that were made were used.
Now, those who shun a free vaccine - and haven't already caught COVID - are choosing not to lower their risk of contracting COVID in that one way... But that doesn't really help your argument.
For someone who already has natural immunity, that matters.
If serious adverse events are 1 in 100,000 - and I believe they are higher the younger you are - then that's significantly better odds than playing the lottery to end up hurt.
And for what?
"The greater benefit for society" is actually negative if you've been confirmed to have natural immunity.
If there's any point that you have to argue against this, I'd hope you make it instead of throwing out assertions.