"Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination," the authors concluded.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

From the article :')

I feel like you cherry picked the one study that fits your bias, and ignored the dozen others which do not.

Here’s a direct counter from one of the other studies:

> The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated.

And here’s the conclusion of the article:

Overall, the variable immune responses to infection, lower neutralization against delta, and the clear boost in protection from a very safe, highly effective vaccine make a strong argument for vaccinating the recovered.

"> The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated."

That's not comparing vaccine vs natural immunity. That's comparing vaccine + natural immunity to natural immunity alone. Not what the question is, even though the framing of the study implies otherwards.

You're right, which is a direct counter to the parent comment of "there's no benefit to getting the vaccine if you've had covid".

Which I never stated

Yes, an article discussing how different studies show different results also quotes authors of studies that show a negative result, what a surprise... not quite the "gotcha" you suggest it is. It also references studies in the other direction, that's the point of that article.