[bbatchelder]

> just about the idea that recovered individuals would be less protected than a vaccinated individual on average.

I don't think its so much about the idealized immune response, but that in general, people's immune response to natural infection seems to widely vary, with many not having much of a robust response.

It very well may be that a good immune response to natural infection may be better than one from an mRNA vaccine targeting the spike protein - but in aggregate the vaccine will be more successful because its induces a more consistent response.

[jonhohle]

Again, this seems counterintuitive to me. If infected, the immune system reacts to foreign bodies. If jabbed, the immune system reacts to foreign bodies. The intention of the shots are to stimulate the same system as a natural reaction, minus the threat of disease. If an individual wouldn’t have a strong response to infection, why would it be any different from a subset of proteins?

Is there academic research on this topic that existed prior to SARS-Cov-2?