Went thru the study. Comparison was made vax vs previous infection recovered people. But it did not address age of vax or age/duration of previous infection, and in the case of that previous infection what the dosage was of the inhaled virus particles. Naturally it could not. The issue of false positives also finds its way into the data.
There is a blurb in the report addressing age/duration of recovered immunity. France did a big study and said it’s not long in duration. Confirmed by an Israel study. But then not confirmed in the US or UK.
So there has been an aggressive leap to conclude things about that CDC report, but you have to read all of it to find it doesn’t really say all that much. No real seasonal control, or prevailing case density at some particular sampling dates.
The only way to test for this stuff is to put people in a room, infect them, have them recover and then spray virus up their nose again. Same done to vaxed people, with vax brand new.
It will never be done.
The biggest deficit of the study was that it only examined hospital patients - which is already a very select (and thus "skewed") group.
The vast proportion of people with natural immunity whose natural immunity was so powerful that they never had to be hospitalized was thus ignored.
Regards,
Which article did you review? Which title or page number? It’s a really long set of articles.