That is not science or data. It is the opposite. It is you making unsubstantiated declarations. Had you been an expert it would be a logical fallacy. (an appeal to authority). Since you are not an expert, it is just worthless. When you wish to produce a useful data set, which tracks fully vaccinated people over 9 months or more, we can talk. Until then we can presume you will just be lying per your SOP.
We provided the data multiple times --- go read it again. Start with the post today from WRB explaining the information in detail... https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...-equal-or-superior.363357/page-8#post-5503142
another lie. You have not produced data of a group of people who have been tracked for breakthrough infections. That is not possible to do with the KF database. WRB has not done so either. Not even close. WRB's chart tells you it is the % diagnosed. Get it... they tested positive on a particular day. But what about the millions of people who were positive and and were not tested and day in which they were infected. Do we need to go over the definition of Breakthrough infection to stop you from lying? Hint, it does not included the words diagnosed or tested positive at one point in time. By definition it covers the whole time period.
Stop pushing nonsense. You are ridiculous and the stuff you assert is absurd. Not even worth having a discussion with you.
We can see you are not interested in the truth. The truth is they are only tracking Covid "events" i.e. diagnosis, hospitalization, or death (see below) KFF and most states are not tracking a whole database of people. If you wish to see the truth you can go to the studies I have cited which track useful groups of people and have found found natural immunity to be equal or superior. Now, I believe you are smart enough to understand what I have proven to you. So every time you or other trolls try to pretend the breakthrough rate is established at .5%. you all are anti science and anti data liars. https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/ "We utilize two approaches in our analysis. The first assesses the share of fully vaccinated individuals that have experienced a COVID-19 event (i.e. diagnosis, hospitalization, or death) within each state. The second assesses the share of total COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths attributable to fully vaccinated individuals compared to individuals who are not fully vaccinated within each state. Individuals who are not fully vaccinated may include those who are not vaccinated, partially vaccinated, or have an unknown vaccination status. In some cases, it is not possible to determine whether a hospitalization or death of a vaccinated individual with COVID-19 was due to COVID-19."
What is the point here? Or is there no point? Because of course, as everyone knows, you have to take a chance on getting deathly ill or dying to acquire "natural immunity", whereas for free you can acquire "immunity" with virtually zero risk of dying or getting deathly ill. Only a fool would not choose the latter path if they could. "There's a fool born every minute." --- P.T. Barnum Post Script: I am compelled to comment that some of the many studies cited in the O.P. may be defective if they 1) used data from other than ELISA to determine seropositivity, and 2) if rt-PCR was used to determine breakthrough "infection" in the absence of symptoms. In other words, no symptomless case should be included in breakthrough infections without blood or tissue confirmation. rt-PCR does not determine infection it determines only the presence of virus particles, active or inactive. It can do so in extremely small amounts. In symptomless cases, only rt-PCR done on blood or tissue samples can reliably establish the presence of active infection. ELISA, but not most quick "dip-stick" serological tests, can reliably establish previous infection. In cases were there is serious illness, the peculiar complex of symptoms caused by infection with Covid-19 is enough, without either rt-PCR or ELISA to diagnose the presence of a Covid-19 infection with a high degree of reliability in a milieu of rt-PCR or ELISA confirmed Covid-19 cases.
I have a question for you. Holding Omicron aside. Looking at data was their a category of people who would be safer risking the virus and getting therapeutics rather than getting fully vaccinated. For instance, would healthy males who compete in sports ages 15 through 22 years old be better off testing at the first sign of symptoms and seeking monoclonal antibodies rather than risking side effects of the vaccine?
You make it sound so binary. Of course if it was "get the shot and you're immune" or "risk the virus and you might die" and that would be a no-brainer. But its a lot more nuanced than this. Some people aren't at risk from the virus. Some people have a bad, even potentially fatal reaction to the vaccine. Some people get COVID despite having the vaccine AND booster. So if you're someone who doesn't have risk from the virus, why would you risk the vaccine?? And because a narrative is being driven that is trying to push people to a vaccine without all of the information being allowed to flow, there's a huge suspicion as to what is real and what is not. That is what got us here.
I wonder how it feels to have dead remnants of Covid-19 running around in one's blood. And then wondering what the long term effects of the vaccinations are that are being suppressed in the media? I would think it would be scary.