I got busy there for awhile, but I've decided to post a couple links publicly after all. Primarily because, while you notice both talk about the power of natural immunity, the doctor in link 1 is still recommending the vaccine to those who don't have it and don't have natural immunity, so he's clearly not anti-vax. And link 2 has good information on a large study but also mentions things the study doesn't consider - including something I believe you mentioned - it "doesn’t take into account what this virus does to the body to get to that point" plus it seems to find that natural immunity plus one dose of vaccine creates the best protection.
My point all along is that critical thinking vs a one-size-fits-all approach is what has been missing in this discussion and I believe both of these links example that well.
link 1
link 2
Thanks for posting those links. Though I will point out that the only supporting reference that the doctor in your first link gives for his position is the study in your second link.
Regarding that Israeli study, the biggest issue with it from a scientific perspective is the sample size. The study reports a 13-fold increase in infection for vaccinated vs. previously infected, but the real numbers are 238 infections in the vaccinated sample of ~16,000 and 19 in the previously infected sample of about the same size. Those numbers are small enough that I'd say they remain within margin of error. Even if we assume that the numbers are entirely accurate, the risk of a breakthrough infection is very low in either case, and reporting it as a 13-fold increase sensationalizes the data. To put things in perspective, per the data from the study, the risk of a breakthrough infection when vaccinated is about the same as the risk of dying if you contract COVID.
Furthermore, as you said, the study also reports increased protection for those who have been both infected and vaccinated, meaning that there is potentially a benefit to getting the vaccine even if you have already had COVID (again, small sample size makes it difficult to draw major conclusions).
Again, from what you've said, you and your family have a valid reason to not get the vaccine due to potentially fatal allergic reactions, and anyone attacking you for that is an idiot. But, aside from similar cases where the vaccine poses a real, known risk to the patient, there does not seem to be any medical/scientific justification to avoid it. In case of limited supply, it would seem that we could prioritize those who haven't been infected, but that's not really an issue here in the US. And getting infected voluntarily is a very bad idea due to the risks associated with the disease. Assuming that you don't already have a known allergy, your risk of dying from contracting COVID - while low - is still much, much,
much higher than it is from the vaccine. And that's before getting into the much more common long-term impacts (Long COVID), or even the short-term impacts of being sick for two weeks or more.
Critical thinking is important, and is unfortunately, something that's becoming less common in our society. However, I'm not really seeing how any of this makes a case for not getting vaccinated. It does suggest that if you've been infected and
can't get vaccinated for whatever reason, you're at least as safe, if not safer than, had you just been vaccinated without getting sick. But given the recorded benefits of being both previously infected
and vaccinated as well as the well-documented (by this point) safety of the vaccine, there's no reason not to get it outside of a shortage or a previously-known allergy.
ETA: here's a pretty good analysis of the issue, including a discussion of the Israeli study -
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/natural-immunity-covid-19/
