I posted the article because I figured it might be easier to digest for those that don’t look at data often. I also linked the source material which you disregarded. I’ll do the not so heavy lifting for you.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveytechnicalarticleimpactofvaccinationontestingpositiveintheuk/latest
1.Main points
Vaccination significantly reduced the risk of people testing positive during both the Alpha-dominant period and the Delta-dominant period.
Vaccine effectiveness was reduced in the Delta-dominant period compared with the Alpha-dominant period, particularly in preventing infections with symptoms.
Two doses of either Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines provided a similar level of protection to prior natural infection when the Delta variant was dominant.
Two doses of either vaccine provided significantly greater protection than one dose across all analyses.
Delta-dominant period (17 May to 14 August 2021)
During the Delta-dominant period from 17 May to 14 August 2021, there were 8,306 polymerase chain reaction- (PCR-) positive test results that were the first positive in a new infection episode. The number of positives in each of the vaccine status exposure groups can be found in the accompanying dataset.
Figure 5 shows the risk ratios for testing positive by vaccine exposure group during the Delta-dominant period, irrespective of vaccine type:
two vaccine doses (14 days or more previously) reduced the risk of testing positive by 67% (95% confidence interval: 64% to 70%) during the Delta period. During the Alpha period this figure was 79% (95% confidence interval: 73% to 84%)
there was no evidence that the reduction in risk of infection from two vaccine doses (14 days or more previously) differed from that of previous natural infection (71% risk reduction, 95% confidence interval: 65% to 77%)
two doses (14 days or more previously) provided a greater reduction in risk than one dose (21 days or more previously), which reduced the risk of testing positive by 49% (95% confidence interval: 44% to 53%)
Again, the concern is we’re vilifying people and ruining their livelihoods under false presumptions. The alternative is that we’re just trying to punish people, as Anastasis suggested.
People on this forum straight up hate unvaccinated people. Even naturally recovered ones whose immunity is roughly equivalent. It would be good for the country and lower the temperature a bit if that fact was simply, officially acknowledged and policy adjusted accordingly.
Just wait til places start mandating kids get vaccinated despite documented previous infection. Literally anti science.