i.e., the questionable number is orders of magnitude larger than the reliable number.
> as antibody levels in survivors drop
Recovered survivors have multiple mechanisms of defense, including antibodies against components of SARS-CoV-2 (not just spike protein) and T-cells, which have been proven effective against SARS1 after 17 years. They also have both nasal/mucous and blood/serum antibodies, unlike the vaccinated which have primarily blood/serum antibodies against one spike protein variant for symptom reduction.
Survivors don't need boosters. Those who take non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines may need boosters.
>
Where "in a particular way" is highly accurate genomic sequencing rather than a PCR test with a long list of known problems,
The particular way requires both the original diagnosis of the first infection AND the diagnosis of the second infection to be done the same way.
Most infections never get diagnosed that way in the first place, which is why such a comparison is impossible for the vast majority of cases.
What exactly is your theory? That those 35,000 people never had COVID in the first place, or that what they got the second time around isn't COVID? Or that we can disregard every other word in that report, because the only word that matters in it is '137'?
> , which have been proven effective against SARS1 after 17 years.
Unfortunately for those people, we're not dealing with a SARS1 outbreak.
How many years have they been proven effective against SARS2?
> Survivors don't need boosters. Those who take non-sterilizing intramuscular vaccines may need boosters.
Your understanding of the situation differs by two and a half orders of magnitude from reality.
And that number has nowhere to go but up, as antibody levels in survivors drop.