(Referenced studies are linked in the article).
Why should people who already have antibodies take marginal unnecessary risk for no gain?
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm
“Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.”
While it might be fair to challenge the credibility of WSJ, you should know that the CDC study you cited had a relatively small sample size and was limited to a small geographic area over a 2 month period. Recent large scale multicentre studies with ~100x more participants have provided strong counter evidence that natural infection confers highly effective protection [3].
> A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. [3]
For reference here's high quality publications supporting GP's claim that natural infection provides robust and durable immunity that is at least as protective as vaccination [1][2][3][4].
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Longitudinal analysis shows durable and broad immune memory after SARS-CoV-2 infection with persisting antibody responses and memory B and T cells https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-37...
[3] SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33844963/
[4] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
Hospitalizations from Covid19 among the fully vaccinated stands at "thirty six per million fully vaccinated" and steadily increasing.
Since both outcomes come at the end of a process (get vaccinated -> get exposed to the virus -> get an infection -> require a hospital visit -> die from illness), there is naturally at least five or weeks lags between someone completing the full vaccination schedule and the hospitalization/death outcome occurring.
Given that about half the full vaccinations in the U.S. happened since April and given that the consensus seems to be that vaccine conferred protection lasts about 6-8 months, I would not expect the "deaths from Covid19 per million fully vaccinated against Covid19" to stabilize until October.
In the mean time, the unvaccinated will either have to submit or driven into the shadows with the current policies. Pretty soon, it will be a miracle to find anyone whose natural immune response without vaccination can be measured/tested at all.
[1]: Current version: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/bre...
[2]: Snapshots since April: https://archive.ph/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hea...
> Prof. Zywicki’s immunologist, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, has advised him that, based on his personal health and immunity status, it is medically unnecessary to get a Covid-19 vaccine — and that it violates medical ethics to order unnecessary procedures.
> the Policy is unmistakably coercive and cannot reasonably be considered anything other than an unlawful mandate. And even if the Policy is not deemed coercive, it still represents an unconstitutional condition being applied to Professor Zywicki’s constitutional rights to bodily integrity and informed medical choice, respectively.
> GMU’s Policy infringes upon Professor Zywicki’s rights under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
