Not clear why this is an argument for vaccine mandates when natural immunity is already better than the vaccine alone, and puts individuals in the same or better place as the vaccine.
> second because natural immunity prior to the vaccine implies getting COVID and the extremy high risk of complications
What does this have to do with people who already had covid?
> there isn't any data around what happens if you get vaccinated first, then get COVID
Once again what does this have to do with people who already had covid?
> There is no situation where getting vaccinated does not help reduce the likelihood of catching COVID, or suffering serious symptoms.
If you are already in a state where you are at least as protected as vaccinated people, how is this an argument for mandate for those with natural immunity?
You won't be able to find any data comparing mandates for those who have had COVID vs no mandate having any real effect on the general population because those who have already had it are very well protected.
You can have had the j&j vaccine and be way less protected than natural immunity, and be considered compliant. This is absolutely inconsistent.
Pretty major distinction.
It is absurd to suggest that someone deliberately getting covid is a safer way to get immunity.
However, this is a false dichotomy. First, because the same studies that show this ALSO show that getting vaccinated on top of natural immunity is better still ( https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v... ), second because natural immunity prior to the vaccine implies getting COVID and the extremely high risk of complications (from hospitalization, to long COVID symptoms, to death), and third, because there isn't any data around what happens if you get vaccinated first, then get COVID (i.e., is the combination of natural response + vaccine the same if the order is reversed).
There is no situation where getting vaccinated does not help reduce the likelihood of catching COVID, or suffering serious symptoms.