I'm calling BS here.

It's highly likely that natural infection provides worse protection that vaccination and we have real world evidence that already suggests this.

1. Two exposures to the spike protein are likely to create a much better long term immune response simply because of multiple exposures in a short period of time.

2. The spike protein produced by the mRNA and J&J vaccines is engineered to produce better response against variants.

3. We've already seen evidence of natural infection performing poorly in rural parts of Brazil with very high initial infection rates (> 70% which is near the herd immunity threshold) like Manaus where we're seeing significant evidence of reinfection where it should be have been difficult for COVID to spread.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n394

1. The current mRNA vaccine, only produces antibodies to the spike protein. A natural immunity produces antibodies to several components of the virus. If the virus mutates its spike, a natural immunity will still provide some protection.

2. A vaccine producing (IIRC) two orders of magnitude more antibodies than natural immunity is not necessarily a good thing.

Long COVID, that vaccines seem to help with (but still need more study) disagrees with you.

Ivermectin is also a potential treatment for long covid. I personally feel much safer using one of the safest medicines known to mankind.

Or, you know... die. Like 3M+ people have worldwide already.

Some methods work on the numerator, other methods work on the denominator. Both will contribute to herd immunity.