Isn't the science showing that we do know the downstream impact to disease and transmission risk is preferable in the case of natural immunity?

Not sure what you mean, if the test determines I have immunity similar to what a vaccine provides and knowing that I choose not to get it, what are the downstream impacts?

I think the parent is saying "we don't know that natural immunity affords the same protection as vaccination", but I believe he's mistaken.

I see, I guess I don't know either way, seems like something that isn't particularly difficult to study though so I'd be surprised if it wasn't known at this point.

I'm sure it's quite difficult to study, but no less so than studying the vaccine. I'd be surprised if we didn't already know at least as much about natural immunity, but whether the media are effectively communicating that information is another question.

> The downstream impact to disease and transmission risk, definitely not.

In what way?

It will definitely not be better studied because it the focus and the funding is on how well vaccination works. Vaccines have a revenue model; natural immunity doesn't.