>And don't try to say it was an objective public health measure - if that was the case they would've made natural immunity as acceptable as vaccination)

It was an objective public health measure, because it is well-known from actual examples that opening such option would lead people to try to get infected instead of being vaccinated, breeding even more variants and hospital saturation.

Note also that "previous contamination" has never been an acceptable derogation in any public health system for any of the compulsory vaccinations.

> It was an objective public health measure, because it is well-known from actual examples that opening such option would lead people to try to get infected instead of being vaccinated, breeding even more variants and hospital saturation.

Bullshit.

> Note also that "previous contamination" has never been an acceptable derogation in any public health system for any of the compulsory vaccinations.

Nonsense. Literally the first example I looked up was the CDC's measles vaccination advice https://www.cdc.gov/measles/hcp/vaccine-considerations/index... : laboratory confirmation of immunity or of the disease is considered presumptive evidence of immunity in exactly the same way that a vaccination record is.