Lovely. Now please indicate where your source indicates it is “much higher in the vaccinated.” Because your source doesn’t seem to make that claim, nor does the article it cites.

I read both the Clark County Today article, which horribly misrepresents the science, and the actual NEJM article, which also does not support the argument you are making.

The NEJM article says the following:

• The effectiveness of previous infection alone against symptomatic BA.2 infection was 39.5-51.9%

• The effectiveness of vaccination with two doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was negligible (−1.1%; 95% CI, −7.1 to 4.6), but nearly all persons had received their second dose more than 6 months earlier.

• The effectiveness of three doses of BNT162b2 and no previous infection was 48.1-55.9%

• The effectiveness of previous infection and two doses of BNT162b2 was 50.9-58.9%

• The effectiveness of previous infection and three doses of BNT162b2 was 72.4-81.4%

They are defining effectiveness as being against “symptomatic COVID” for these numbers, so you cannot draw any conclusions about disease severity from these numbers (which is where your conclusions are inaccurate). In terms of disease severity in these populations, this is what the paper had to say:

“Even though the five forms of immunity investigated showed large differences in protection against symptomatic infection that ranged from 0 to 80%, they all showed strong protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death, at an effectiveness of more than 70%. This suggests that any form of previous immunity, whether induced by previous infection or vaccination, is associated with strong and durable protection against Covid-19–related hospitalization and death.”

So, in conclusion, I read your source, as well as the actual scientific data the article is supposedly pulling from, and the argument you are trying to make based on this data is specious and unsupported.

That article doesn't provide a source or link to the study in question. All it does is link to a website that has been rated as having a conservative bias.

I'd be genuinely interested to read the study if you can provide it.

Edit: I decide to try and find it myself. Needless to say, there aren't any studies in the NEJM that support this claim with the confidence that the above comment suggests. However, this is the best guess as to the study in question: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2119451

If you read through it, it does state that protection wanes significantly at 20 - 24 weeks (5 - 6 months), and this was already known. It does not, however, state that natural immunity is stronger or longer lasting than vaccination. It also states several times over that the results need to taken with caution and that more research will be needed.

That's pretty clearly comparing those who are vaccinated to those who are previously infected. Not vaccinated vs unvaccinated.

Here's a link to the study for everyone else: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2203965

I did a quick read of the study, and the study is comparing previous infection immunity with vaccination immunity. It does not say anything about being unvaccinated with no prior infection.

TL;DR of the study is 2 dose vaccination is similar or slightly worse than natural immunity through previous covid infection, 3 dose immunity is better, and previous infection + booster is best.

So I would say your claims of being unvaccinated is better is misleading at best. You must be unvaccinated and also have immunity through a previous infection. But again, the study claims higher efficacy to be previously infected and have a booster, so vaccinations are still better.

I apologize man but if you actually read the study instead of some “journalists” paraphrasing of it you would see that it clearly says that the vaccines are worse than someone who had covid antibodies. Basically it is saying you need to have had covid within a few months of contracting the next case to have higher effectiveness (from antibodies) than the vaccines. So if you want to risk yourself and infect yourself with a disease just so you can be safer if you get it a second time, be my guest. But don’t lie about it.