Thanks for clarifying. > The argument that is being made by the article is "natural immunity is better than vaccine acquired immunity because unvaccinated and

Thanks for clarifying. > The argument that is being made by the article is "natural immunity is better than vaccine acquired immunity because unvaccinated and previously infected people get hospitalized when they are reinfected less often, so vaccine mandates are bad" I don't think that's the author's argument though. Their goal doesn't seem to be to pit the two types of immunity against each other and declare one a winner (just look at the title, and quotes like these: Can the case be any clearer, simultaneously, for both the efficacy of vaccines and natural immunity?) The point is that in large part, a mandate would be imposed on people who already were infected, and these people won't benefit (much anyway), and neither will the vaccinated as a result. If this was published early pandemic and the article was saying "no mandates, everyone should just get infected", I think your point would stand. But at this stage, there just wouldn't be that much benefit gained by forcing a largely convalescent population to get the shots, and you'd be incurring a heavy cost politically and ethically.