No, he's also talking about severe illness and death. He's saying that prior infection is a good substitute for the vaccine in preventing severe illness and death. The corollary being that we should consider "vaxed or prior infection" and "immunologically naive" as the two relevant groups (for mandates etc), not "vaxed" and "unvaxed".

Prior infection is a good substitute for the vaccine because the ones that die from that "prior infection" aren't going to be in the statistic that shows how effective a prior infection is compared to a vaccine for a subsequent covid infections

You're responding to the wrong comment. I'm clarifying what the other commenter said, not championing his point.

That being said, your comment still doesn't make any sense. The people who would be substituting prior infection for a vaxpass would not be the dead ones, because dead people are not known for going to comedy shows, bars, or restaurants.

Ie, the claim is that "conditioned on being infected [and alive], a vaccine is superfluous". The [and alive] that you clarified is about as helpful as "and non-fictional"