The U.S. government’s top infectious-disease expert, Anthony S. Fauci, also responded to the Israeli study two weeks ago by saying that natural immunity was “something that we need to sit down and discuss seriously.”

At the same time, Fauci emphasized there’s plenty we still need to account for and study further. Leading that list: Even if natural immunity allows for greater protection, how durable is it when compared with vaccine-induced immunity? Some research suggests it’s less long-lasting. If people who have been infected are exempted from the vaccine mandates or simply decide not to get the shots, what happens when they are outside the window of what the Israeli study suggests is superior protection?

Another problem with emphasizing natural immunity, as others have noted, is that it might encourage people to deliberately become infected — believing that it’s better or that it might exempt them from a vaccine they don’t want.

“ … It’s important to acknowledge that those promoting natural immunity aren’t entirely wrong,” George Washington University professor and Washington Post contributing columnist Leana S. Wen wrote in late August, after the Israeli study. She added: “They might even make a reasonable case that those who had the disease don’t need both doses of the vaccine. Where they go grievously wrong is when they encourage people to forgo vaccination and instead opt for infection.”