This recent study from the Lancet ends with the following summary:
Community immunity to control the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic can be reached with the acquired immunity due to either previous infection or vaccination. Acquired immunity from vaccination is certainly much safer and preferred. Given the evidence of immunity from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, however, policy makers should consider recovery from previous SARS-CoV-2 infection equal to immunity from vaccination for purposes related to entry to public events, businesses, and the workplace, or travel requirements.
Isn’t it strange that very few public health officials are talking about this obvious point, ie, that there is no need to institute vaccine mandates that don’t consider the role of natural immunity?
The statement by the LDS First Presidency actually DOES consider prior infection when it points out that “we want to do all we can to limit the spread of these viruses. And we know that protection from the diseases they cause can only be achieved by immunizing a very high percentage of the population.” Note the use of the word “immunizing,” not “vaccinating.” Immunizing includes natural immunity, which the Lancet study clearly shows to be an important factor.
The Lancet study is actually a study of many different papers that have been released.
We reviewed studies published in PubMed from inception to Sept 28, 2021, and found well conducted biological studies showing protective immunity after infection (panel). Furthermore, multiple epidemiological and clinical studies, including studies during the recent period of predominantly delta (B.1.617.2) variant transmission, found that the risk of repeat SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased by 80·5–100% among those who had had COVID-19 previously (panel). The reported studies were large and conducted throughout the world. Another laboratory-based study that analysed the test results of 9119 people with previous COVID-19 from Dec 1, 2019, to Nov 13, 2020, found that only 0·7% became reinfected.11 In a study conducted at the Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, OH, USA, those who had not previously been infected had a COVID-19 incidence rate of 4·3 per 100 people, whereas those who had previously been infected had a COVID-19 incidence rate of 0 per 100 people.6 Furthermore, a study conducted in Austria found that the frequency of hospitalisation due to a repeated infection was five per 14 840 (0·03%) people and the frequency of death due to a repeated infection was one per 14 840 (0·01%) people.
The Lancet report continues:
Although those studies show that protection from reinfection is strong and persists for more than 10 months of follow-up,3 it is unknown how long protective immunity will truly last. Many systemic viral infections, such as measles, confer long-term, if not lifelong, immunity, whereas others, such as influenza, do not (due to changes in viral genetics).4 We are limited by the length of current reported follow-up data to know with certainty the expected duration that previous infection will protect against COVID-19. Encouragingly, authors of a study conducted among recovered individuals who had experienced mild SARS-CoV-2 infection reported that mild infection induced a robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.
So, to sum up: natural immunity exists and is an important factor in creating societal protection. Yet none of the COVID cultists are mentioning it. Why are they ignoring the science?