I don't see survivor bias here at all. This is simply a study that caters to a rather significant population who justifiably want to know what they stand to gain from this vaccine.
What this study has done is identified a sub population who stand to gain such minuscule benefit from vaccination that it would be unethical to include them in a study (most studies DO exclude previously infected individuals, huh wonder why?) Furthermore it is unscientific discrimination to penalize people when they could prove prior infection and/or immunity.
peterbonney's right for exactly the reasons that the public trying to reason its way through interpreting studies like this unaided is dangerous to public health.
This is an observational study. It's not possible for it to control for (among other things) the possibility that those who were infected and survived already possessed enhanced natural immunity due to some other cause. All we know is that people who get COVID-19 and don't die from it are less likely to become symptomatic with the delta variant than people who are inoculated, not whether or not they were always less likely to become symptomatic with the delta variant.
People who interpret this study to mean "I don't need the vaccine" are really rolling the dice on the possibility that there's an X-factor here to COVID-19 survival... And they don't have it.
I see they recovered. You're correct... One interpretation could be that a high percentage of X-factor was present in this study's recovered group. But since we don't know what the X-factor is, an unvaccinated person is rolling dice by assuming they have it.
Nothing about this study guarantees an unvaccinated individual survives a brush with COVID-19; it suggests they're likely to survive a second brush with it (and likelier still if they get vaccinated).
That’s not strictly true. There have been deaths, but this can be attributed to components in the vaccines that these unlucky people may have gotten at any time. There have been rare and unusual vaccine caused deaths.
In this study nobody died from vaccine. But the big thing thats not adjusted for is once you got Covid you will wear mask and won't go to restaurant, this is not adjusted for in this study.
Do you honestly think its wrong or uncommon to study a group of people who have experienced a disease? Perhaps in an effort to make them informed about their particular risks?
You haven't read the replied upthread where people use research like this to suggest "Corona parties" (like chickenpox parties) and how many people think it's safer to catch the virus than get the vaccine?
This article will absolutely not just be used by already-infected people trying to make a decision.
Its a problem for the main narrative but that is because the main narrative is brittle and stupid. I don't see why scientific news ought to be forced to cater to a particular political narrative. Let the main narrative fold this in along with whatever caveats they wish, leave the science publications out of it.
What this study has done is identified a sub population who stand to gain such minuscule benefit from vaccination that it would be unethical to include them in a study (most studies DO exclude previously infected individuals, huh wonder why?) Furthermore it is unscientific discrimination to penalize people when they could prove prior infection and/or immunity.