Never has there been a virus that, once you get it, you don't have durable immunity to that specific virus.
Yes, viruses mutate. Some mutate so much (e.g. HIV) that vaccination is basically impossible; it doesn't work. All attempts to vaccinate against a coronavirus in the past have failed for this reason as well. We know the current jabs, for example, wane off in about six months time, becoming statistically worthless, and even faster if a new mutation shows up (e.g. Omicron.)
The screamfest has been that "oh, if you had Covid, you'll get it again so you need the jab."
There was never any evidence for this claim.
Now, we have duration data out 20 months, basically the entire pandemic, and... I'll just quote it:
Among 295 reported COVID-confirmed participants, 293 (99%) tested positive for anti-RBD antibodies (≥250 U/mL, 44%; ≥500 U/mL, 27%; ≥1000 U/mL, 15%). A median of 8.7 (IQR, 1.9-12.9; range, 0-20) months passed since reported COVID-19 diagnosis. The median anti-RBD level among those who tested positive was 205 (IQR, 61-535) U/mL. There was no evidence of association between time after infection and antibody titer (0.8% increase [95% CI, –2.4% to 4.2%] per month, P = .62)
There was no evidence of deterioration of protection, such as it is.
Yet we know, factually, that when you get jabbed the titers disintegrate over the space of just a few months.
There was never evidence this would happen in people who got the virus and recovered.
Never one scintilla of evidence was ever presented for that claim and we now know it was false.
Indeed the CDC has admitted that among those who had Covid the jabs provide no statistically-significant improvement in protection whatsoever.
Yeah, this new study was a relatively small sample. But it showed several things, all of them important. First, many people who thought they had Covid, but didn't get proved up for it, really didn't have it. Second, about 10% of those who didn't think they had it actually did but didn't know it. And third, if you really did have it whatever protection you are afforded does not disappear over at least nearly two years time, which is all the experience we have with this specific virus thus far.
I remind you that at the outset of this pandemic we had a study published showing cross-protection against Covid-19 among those who had SARS and survived it. That protection was still present more than a decade later.
However safe you believe the jabs are this much is absolutely certain as a matter of mathematical and medical fact: There is no such thing as a drug or other therapy without risk, and if you have durable protection from infection it is gross malpractice and even intentional harm to give you a drug when there is no possibility you could benefit from it.
Those who administer, allow to be administered, or coerce someone into taking a jab when they were previously infected have committed these offenses and must be punished in accordance with both civil and criminal law. Their actions have caused people to risk serious, even mortal harm for no possible benefit whatsoever.
PS: LinkedIn removed publication of this study on their platform. It was returned after a big stink was raised. Exactly what is the claimed "misinformation" when we are talking about actual, published medical study results? Nothing -- except that it proves that the big tech and other company mandates are maliciously harmful and the officers, directors and everyone else involved should be roasted by the plaintiff's bar, right before they're indicted, tried and imprisoned after being asset-stripped to their underwear.