You included a link - not a study, and as far as I'm aware... and no quote. So, I took a look at the Nature.com site, myself, and found a good article on COVID and vaccines that appeared right on their main page. You can see, below, that I've provided a link and a direct quote to the article that state how amazingly efficacious the mRna vaccines are at producing "more potent immune cells as time went on." I even highlighted important words for those that "don't like to read paragraphs." So, yeah, excellent article on Nature.com that actually supports the amazing efficacy of the mRna vaccines.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02532-4
What does that even mean? I included a link not a study? To include a study it would have to be a link. I sent you one article from nature.com that referenced a study, then in another post I linked to a study itself. Both from nature.com, both confirming the effectiveness of natural immunity. But, I guess only their studies on vaccine efficacy counts? In which case your agenda is obvious and you're not someone capable of being objective.
I'm not the one picking and choosing, I follow ALL of the science. I never said the vaccine wasn't effective. In fact, I've said countless times now that anyone older or at-risk should absolutely get vaccinated. For everyone else, it's a personal decision that I have no business judging.
So the question is, why can't the government or their bootlickers (yourself) admit that natural immunity is effective? There are people who contracted the virus before a vaccine was available to them, and these people, based on the science, should be considered just as safe and protected as those vaccinated. Thus, should not be under any vaccine mandates. That's all this is about. Give natural immunity the credit it deserves.