>In the US, however, public health officials are unequivocal in their approach: people are categorized as either vaccinated or unvaccinated, regardless of prior infection. It's an approach with many strengths, including robust scientific data supporting vaccination for people who have recovered. That data—which we'll get into below—has consistently shown that immune responses from natural infections are extremely variable, thus unreliable.

It's easier to prove this with data when multi-billion dollar industries sell vaccines, domestically and globally...

> The US approach also has logistical benefits. Simple categories of "vaccinated" and "unvaccinated" skip over the messy and difficult step of figuring out who has been infected and when.

And WHY is this difficult and messy? We made a herculean effort to push out a new medicine, but we can't do the same for natural immunity detection?

> Though opponents argue that mass vaccination is driven by "evil corporations" out for prodigious profits at all costs

Not that long ago they would rather you die than cover costs for pre-existing conditions (as one example). They are incentivized by profit, and saying otherwise is a fringe theory.

I've said this before and I will say it again, the whole "No, ...." style of headline is so condescending and confrontational that the people it needs to persuade aren't going to bother reading it.

Is it so hard to write a headline like "An explanation as to why antibodies are not better than vaccination"? Or something like that. Must journalists feel the need to talk down to people?

Stupid fight and not a problem in EU where infection that is confirmed by PCR test is also a valid option for EU COVID-19 certificate. Unfortunately it only lasts for 6 months but some member states are considering to extend this period.