You might be right about natural immunity as an alternative. I think implicitly the idea is there's something incomplete about the vaccine antigen (however it g

You might be right about natural immunity as an alternative. I think implicitly the idea is there's something incomplete about the vaccine antigen (however it gets presented) that might create a bigger "possibility surface" for mutations to develop that would retain the core functions of the virus but allow the virus to escape detection. As opposed to naturally acquired immunity, where your body has been exposed to the entire thing (but then has been exposed to the functional virus). Let's say I tell you to look for a suspect. You say "ok, what do they look like?" In one case, I show you a picture of their face. In another case, I introduce you to them and let you inspect them completely and take whatever photos or do whatever 3d scanning you want. It's probably easier for the suspect to develop a disguise in the former case than the latter? Maybe not, but I think that's the general idea. It is interesting to think about resistance evolution in the context of the specific vaccines that are available vs natural immunity. I seem to recall reading that the choice of viral components to target in the vaccines was done in part so as to leave little wiggle room for mutations, so you might be right about evolution of resistance relative to natural exposure. But theory and reality are always different. FWIW, I'm not trying to imply people shouldn't get vaccinated, or that vaccines are somehow causing problems. There's just reasons to think that if vaccination rates aren't high enough, it's easier for the vaccines to become ineffective over time than if almost everyone were vaccinated.