But, that's not what sterilising immunity means. The fact that previously infected individuals were infected again means that their natural infection did not provide sterilising immunity. Better immunity? That's debatable, but it's not, by any definition I've seen, sterilising immunity.
Imagine that you were waved into the building by guards, and have been under 23 hour/day lockdown in prison awaiting trial for 9 months, and the government is refusing to release video you say would support your claim. The state is apparently using video evidence to prosecute you, but your lawyer can't get other parts of the same body of video evidence.
Begging the question. Defendants say they were waved in, government is withholding video evidence that may support their claim. Hopefully you agree that no valid conviction could be obtained under such circumstances.
Do the defendants have any of their own video evidence to back that up? If this hand-waving were such a big issue, surely someone would have recorded it, even if only by accident.
Also, they have the same information duplicated at c19study.com, c19ivermectin.com, c19early.com, and likely others. Not necessarily indicative of anything nefarious, but it sure is spammy and makes it less trustworthy IMO. Plus, I get a strong whiff of "dO yOuR oWn ReSeArCh" in all of the commentary.
From the FAQ: "Who is @CovidAnalysis? We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution, even if it is only very minor. You can find our research in journals like Science and Nature. For examples of why we can't be more specific search for "raoult death threats" or "simone gold fired". We have little interest in adding to our publication lists, being in the news, or being on TV (we have done all of these things before but feel there are more important things in life now)."
I'm sorry, but if you're not willing to put your name(s) behind your analysis, I'm going to be skeptical.
do you think the police officer's response to Ms. Bland's non-compliance in this case was reasonable? also, in your opinion, could he have de-escalated the situation before pointing a potentially lethal weapon at Ms. Bland's face? i'm really struggling trying to understand how you've arrived your thesis, which seems to be: just don't make cops mad and you (probably) won't die? that seems to me a poor standard for those entrusted with maintaining public safety. since the officer is the person with literally ALL of the power in this interaction and, ostensibly, is provided with extensive training on how to manage difficult interactions such as this, shouldn't he be held to a higher standard of accountability than Ms. Bland?
