CDC weighs in, comparing recovered immunity to vaccine-induced immunity. I comment on CDC's assertions

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/vaccine-induced-immunity.html#anchor_1635539757101 

Below is CDC's executive summary.  My responses are in blue--Nass

Executive Summary

Key findings and considerations for this brief are as follows:

• Available evidence shows that fully vaccinated individuals and those previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 each have a low risk of subsequent infection for at least 6 months. Really?  A massive VA study (780,000 people) shows otherwise:

• "We report SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against infection (VE-I) and death (VE-D) by vaccine type (n = 780,225) in the Veterans Health Administration, covering 2.7% of the U.S. population. From February to October 2021, VE-I declined from 87.9% to 48.1%, and the decline was greatest for the Janssen vaccine resulting in a VE-I of 13.1%. Although breakthrough infection increased risk of death, vaccination remained protective against death in persons who became infected during the Delta surge. From July to October 2021, VE-D for age 65 years was 73.0% for Janssen, 81.5% for Moderna, and 84.3% for Pfizer-BioNTech; VE-D for age ≥65 years was 52.2% for Janssen, 75.5% for Moderna, and 70.1% for Pfizer-BioNTech."   

  https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm0620

• Data are presently insufficient to determine an antibody titer threshold that indicates when an individual is protected from infection. This is the standard answer, but it has not stopped FDA from accepting antibody titers as evidence of immunity from the vaccine manufacturers in all the vaccine clinical trials.
• At this time, there is no FDA-authorized or approved test that providers or the public can use to reliably determine whether a person is protected from infection. This is true--but WHY has FDA failed to inform the public which tests most  reliably indicate immunity?  Why has it failed to approve tests, when it has had over 18 months, in the middle of a pandemic, to evaluate most of them? 
  • The immunity provided by vaccine and prior infection are both high but not complete (i.e., not 100%). Nothing is ever 100%; CDC says this to try to diminish the close to 100% immunity of the recovered
  • Multiple studies have shown that antibody titers correlate with protection at a population level, but protective titers at the individual level remain unknown. Because that is the way FDA and CDC want it, to prevent individuals from demonstrating they are protected and therefore will not benefit from vaccination.
  • Whereas there is a wide range in antibody titers in response to infection with SARS-CoV-2, completion of a primary vaccine series, especially with mRNA vaccines, typically leads to a more consistent and higher-titer initial antibody response. Briefly yes, but as you already pointed out, antibody levels are not a surrogate for protection, so why focus on them?
  • For certain populations, such as the elderly and immunocompromised, the levels of protection may be decreased following both vaccination and infection. True, but apparently this is a bigger problem with vaccination than recovered immunity
  • Current evidence indicates that the level of protection may not be the same for all viral variants. Duh
  • The body of evidence for infection-induced immunity is more limited than that for vaccine-induced immunity in terms of the quality of evidence (e.g., probable bias towards symptomatic or medically-attended infections) and types of studies (e.g., observational cohort studies, mostly retrospective versus a mix of randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, and cohort studies for vaccine-induced immunity). There are insufficient data to extend the findings related to infection-induced immunity at this time to persons with very mild or asymptomatic infection or children. This is a load of hogwash, as there is very high quality evidence, of many types, supporting the superiority of recovered immunity--and the same is true for virtually every other infection.  CDC tries to reinvent the wheel, using a square rather than a circle.
• Substantial immunologic evidence and a growing body of epidemiologic evidence indicate that vaccination after infection significantly enhances protection and further reduces risk of reinfection, which lays the foundation for CDC recommendations. This is more hogwash.  The best studies show practically 100% protection after infection and vaccinating the recovered does NOT improve on this.

In this recent official UK publication, it is apparent that after a few months, the vaccinated are at higher risk for COVID than the unvaccinated.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1027511/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-42.pdf