Are you trying to refute the claim that natural infection confers immunity that is at least equally as protective as vaccination?

It's not clear to me that you've presented any counter evidence. I will try to outline my thoughts on your comment to help the discussion.

[1] is another primary source beyond the OP that demonstrates the durability of the immune response from natural infection. We are in agreement that in principle the immune response from vaccination should also be durable due to relying on the same underlying mechanisms of the immune system - in fact I am unaware of any literature which demonstrates otherwise. So your point about [1] doesn't seem particularly relevant to me.

> Reference [2] is...it says just as much about the efficacy of vaccination as the efficacy of natural immunity

Yes you're right, and that is a relevant quote you pulled from the abstract. Again, I think we're actually in agreement here - the findings support my original claims.

> Read reference [3] to understand why natural immunity doesn't cut it. Note that widespread natural immunity causes the same positive selection pressure as widespread vaccine deployment

You seem to be missing the central thesis of [3], here are the relevant excerpts:

- "The spike protein receptor-binding domain (RBD) of SARS-CoV-2 is the molecular target for many vaccines and antibody-based prophylactics aimed at bringing COVID-19 under control."

- "Such a narrow molecular focus raises the specter of viral immune evasion as a potential failure mode for these biomedical interventions. With the emergence of new strains of SARS-CoV-2 with altered transmissibility and immune evasion potential, a critical question is this: how easily can the virus escape neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) targeting the spike RBD?"

- "Our modeling suggests that SARS-CoV-2 mutants with one or two mildly deleterious mutations are expected to exist in high numbers due to neutral genetic variation, and consequently resistance to vaccines or other prophylactics that rely on one or two antibodies for protection can develop quickly -and repeatedly- under positive selection."

- "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exert specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape"

- "Strategies for viral elimination should therefore be diversified across molecular targets and therapeutic modalities"

We are in agreement [4] and [5] are not an indictment against vaccines - but again you seem to be missing the most important and highly relevant findings which support my claims.

For example from [4]:

- "The acquisition of the L452R substitution by multiple lineages across multiple continents, including the B.1.617.1 and B.1.617.2 lineages emerging in India (54), is suggestive of positive selection, which might result from the selective pressure of RBD-specific neutralizing Abs"

- "Our data support that the SARS-CoV-2 NTD evolved a compensatory mechanism to form an alternative disulfide bond and that mutations of the S signal peptide occur in vivo in a clinical setting to promote immune evasion."

- "Understanding the newly found mechanism of immune evasion in emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, such as the signal peptide modification described herein, is as important as sequence surveillance itself to successfully counter the ongoing pandemic."

For example from [5]:

- "different individuals immunized with the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer–BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines produce closely related, and nearly identical, antibodies."

- "To avert selection and escape, antibody therapies should be composed of combinations of antibodies that target non-overlapping or highly conserved epitopes"

- "We speculate that these mutations emerged in response to immune selection in individuals with nonsterilizing immunity."

> Reference [6]...did you read it? It's about vaccines which protect the host(keep them alive), but still keep them infectious (capable of transmission). None of the COVID-19 vaccines do that...

You are incorrect - the current spike protein focused mRNA based vaccines do not guarantee sterilizing immunity - that means you can be vaccinated yet still get infected and transmit the virus to others. Please cite your sources if you're going to make such claims.