Interesting to see this morning that ZOE have confirmed the ideas floating on this forum a month or so ago, after John Campbell did a video on a similar study - vaccination after natural infection is much more robust with significantly less waning at 6 months.
"The Zoe Covid study found two doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca provided 71% protection against infection up to six months after vaccination.
But protection was increased to 90% among those who previously tested positive for the virus.
Meanwhile, two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech jab gave 80% protection up to six months after vaccination, which increased to 94% with a previous infection."
In his video this week he states that they don't have data on it, but logically if infection came afterwards it might have the same effect (he's more cautious on this point and doesn't recommend it as a 'strategy', although personally I think there's no hiding from infection forever so this is good news for the vaccinated). This could add up to a fairly significant benefit to countries who had already seen larger levels of infection before their vaccination programmes were complete, and could well explain why Scotland has seen things spiral more after lifting restrictions than England has. England levels remain stubbornly flat even after ditching mask mandates and all remaining restrictions, making contact testing voluntary, allowing mass gatherings and nightclubs without restriction, no vaccine passports, and after schools have been back for a month, against even the most optimistic projections. Could natural immunity be the missing variable not accounted for in the models?