That article was written by a British Medical Journal employee. Why do you suppose the BMJ would allow such trashy gossip to be published on their site?
That isn’t the salient question in any rational discussion.
The salient question is why you posted it, and numerous other cites, that not only do not support your position(s), but directly and inarguably contradict you.
It gives one pause, no ?
The claim that major journals refused to publish the research study is based largely (or entirely) on an article in GreenMedInfo, an alt med website known for promoting health misinformation.
Seeing that a major journal (Annals of Internal Medicine) did accept the study for publication, there was a major breakdown in the conspiracy. 
As to why journals might be cautious about publishing studies with significant pandemic implications, consider that an uncomfortably large number (over 200 at this point) that made it into print were subsequently retracted for reasons including methodological faults and outright fraud.
The Danish mask study has been massively exploited and mischaracterized by the anti-mask crowd.
So you agree that the article is well grounded and accurate? Do we both agree on that?
We seem to be heading down that path here, frustratingly.
Yup.
This.
It’s what I’m seeing from Antivax nutters in another board I’m on.
And I am quite sure that many (all?) of them did not actually get covid. They just want to SAY they got it in order to have the excuse to avoid getting vaccinated. It’s an excuse.
So irregardless of the science, as it has been said here, this is also a policy decision. And it is BAD POLICY to go down this route, at least at the present time.
I understand that you’d like to avoid discussing the issue I raised (ie, that you continue to cite sources that directly and inarguably contradict you).
I even understand why you would want to do this.
But I guess I’m just not ready 
I understand. Let me know when you are ready. I’ll be sure to include trigger warnings for anything that might be considered a microagression.
The bottom line is that previous infection plus vaccination gives greater protection than previous infection. Our goal is to get everyone as protected as possible, not to get everyone to the same level.
When I was younger, most cars didn’t have airbags. When airbags became standard, I didn’t stop wearing my seat belt. Because air bags plus a seat belt give better protection than air bags alone.
Moderating:
Let’s keep the personal digs out of the discussion. Thanks.
Not a warning.
You forgot the other part of your post, claiming that natural immunity is better. It’s not:
However, if you get your booster (from that same article):
Depending on the estimates used for vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection from the Delta variant, this translates into vaccine effectiveness estimates against symptomatic Omicron infection of between 0% and 20% after two doses, and between 55% and 80% after a booster dose.
So, I assume you’ll be returning with an apology and going out to get a vaccine. Whatever you plan on doing, I don’t think I’m going to engage with anti-vaxxers on this site anymore, so feel free to have the last word.
At no point did I say not to get a vaccine. I am vaccinated Covid and also more vaccines than most folks, due to international travel. I have in other thread posts noted that vaccines are in the top 3 greatest medical advances. Glad to have got the ones when I traveled and the childhood ones. I noted in this thread and others that Covid vaccines may lessen severity. I think that is due to them specifically targeting the spike protein. But that particular targeting is also a weakness in general immunity to infection and replication. I actually held out getting vaccinated, not because I am anti vax. But waiting for a particular one to be available. It still is not available here. So I finally looked at the science and chose the one that held the most efficacy over time. Moderna.
Your reply is full of suppositions about me. That are nowhere stated. Or likely to be supposed.
Also. Israel is on their 4th booster. Still poor results. And they have excellent data.
If they could target some portion in the Covid virus that worked better to stifle transmission and symptoms then an mRNA vaccine could be fantastic. This technology is fanatastic. I think it may go on to accomplish great things. But this very particular instance is not a best fit for it as it is being targeted.
I wish that the fast tracking and emergency use system was being applied more to adenovirus vaccines more widely at this instance. Though not in general going forward.
Oh jeeze, I’m so sorry, puzzlegal.
And in regards to the actual original post intent.
Acquired immunity being accepted as good as vaccinated. This depends on what variant one acquired immunity to. How well that particular immunity is to other variants. What variant is currently active in a region you are in.
The spike protein seems a common denominator in all variants so far. Though Omicron may have mutated that aspect enough to skate by mRNA vaccines quite well. And may also be eluding acquired immunity of previous variants.
But Omicron so far seems a very mild infection. Maybe due to that spike protein mutation. Getting over it will likely give immunity to it. Whether vaxxed or not. Not clear what other variants that immunity will include immunity to.
But in general. Acquired immunity occurs as a result of the immune system seeing and attacking the virus as a whole entity. It likely produces more varied and or complex antibodies in an attack against a complex foe. The mRNA vaccines specifically create a foe that is the spike protein. A smaller, simpler part of a complex virus structure. Your immune system need only create a specific simple antibody to that foe.
Those antibodies do attack that nasty spike protein and may lessen the terrible effects it causes. But may let the greater virus structure multiply and infect.
On the whole, I think natural immunity against a specific variant will be stronger than the mRNA effect against it. Maybe, depending on the variant you acquired immunity from, it will be robust against many variants. While the mRNA vaccines will be effective against the spike protein and its very bad effects in many variants. But not as robust against transmission.
I think Walensky misspoke (and not for the first time).
Covid vaccination does lower the risk of transmission.
Lowered transmission of Omicron has been reported in vaccinated people as compared to the unvaccinated.
“To summarize, the study findings demonstrate that unvaccinated persons were more susceptible to infection by the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, whereas booster-vaccinated individuals were less susceptible as compared to fully vaccinated individuals in Delta VOC-infected households. Furthermore, a lower susceptibility for booster-vaccinated individuals was detected among those living in families infected with the Omicron VOC. In addition, there was enhanced transmissibility from unvaccinated individuals and decreased transmissibility from booster-vaccinated individuals.”
As usual it is so difficult to interpret the report. And that includes all for and against whatever one might want to present. At least in my limited expertise.
The conclusion says in part, “vaccine breakthrough infections are far less likely to transmit from the index patient to contacts than infections in partially or unvaccinated individuals. However, the reductions in transmission are less effective against the Delta variant compared to the Alpha variant.”
But unless I am reading things incorrectly, in the meat of the article, it seems less apparent for this conclusion.
“Independent of the vaccination status of contacts, for each doubling of the weeks past the initial two weeks post-second vaccination in index patients, the percentage of contacts testing positive increased by a factor of 1.08 in ChAdOx1 index patients and 1.13 in BNT162b2 vaccinated index patients.”
Independent of the vaccine status.
I may be interpreting this incorrectly. But it seems a small difference.
And I must of course add. The vaccines do seem to lessen the adverse effects. I am vaccinated. I think most vaccines are great.
What interests me is whether an infection can be a substitute for a vaccination and as others have said, it already is in many many countries without the degree of concern and scepticism shown in this thread.
But then I wonder if people are all considering the question in quite the same way.
Does infection confer a degree of immunity against catching the disease and suffering a severe case? Yes, there is no doubt.
Can a single infection on its own offer as good a protection as a single dose of vaccine? opinions vary.
Should a single case of infection be considered as a substitute for a full vaccination regime plus booster(s)? probably not, the balance of evidence suggests it isn’t providing equivalent protection.
Should a single case of infection be considered as a substitute to a single vaccination as part of a full course? possibly. Certainly that is the way it is managed in many European countries.
If we are at all concerned that such a policy encourages people to get the disease on purpose or to avoid a full protective course or boosters in the future then the data may well be available to help us see if that is the case.
In case someone thinks I’ve been unfair to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, it’s been noted elsewhere that her “messaging” skills are underwhelming, to the point that she felt it necessary to get the guidance of a media consultant.
People in important positions like CDC Director have to be at the top of their game when it comes to public statements, otherwise deniers and cranks will jump all over vagueness and missteps.