Even if it was, it still means risking death or permanent organ damage + good chance of passing the infection to others. Not the best value proposition & definitely not webscale.

I think it could be technically accurate, if you include that vaccination before getting infected gives better immunity than most other options. (It is almost like a booster shot, but worse in almost every possibly way)

Also probably true without the vaccine first, but the initial survival rate without vaccination is a lot lower.

So do not think, and go and look. Turns out that's exactly what scientists have been saying for a few months already.

I think the first person doing the claim should provide evidence, but anyway:

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-disease...

Here you can find linked three studies by the CDC that support the idea that natural immunity is harder to get and less effective (besides, as others have said, there's the non trivial chance of side effects or not even surviving the virus)

I don't care about what the "experts" think or say, I care about studies.

Update: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02795-x#ref-CR5 reports many studies that claim that we should be vaccinating people after a natural infection to get "super immunity", but that is different from what the OP was claiming (natural immunity > vaccine immunity)

There are studies that say otherwise too.

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

> This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.