Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
Rest assured there will be lower quality and far smaller studies claiming something else.
Here we have a study which is not randomized, but does it even better: it included all employees, and a very large cohort at that.
June 19, 2021
Methods Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System working in Ohio on Dec 16, 2020, the day COVID-19 vaccination was started, were included...
Results Among the 52238 included employees, 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 20804 (42%) of 49659 not previously infected. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity).
Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before.
Summary Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.
WIND: conclusions can often be suspect in studies, but only an idiot or political operative could support the idea that *zero* reinfections supports getting vaccinated.
“Follow the science”, unless it works against the tyrannical narrative?
Unless proven otherwise, normal medicine and science would assume (a) no demonstrated benefit to vaccinating the previously infected, and (b) vaccinations for the previously infected carry risk. And therefore are not only unwarranted but must be assumed to be a net risk, and therefore malpractice. Furthermore, if there are benefits in special cases (possible), show the data which proves it, and act accordingly for those very few special cases.
The study is not saying that vaccination has no benefit for previously infected people. But it also cannot show any demonstrable benefit whatsoever, let alone balance those benefits against the heightened risk profile of vaccinating those previously infected (stronger reactions to the vaccine).