Okay, allow me to point out a problem with you *only* citing articles from this MedRxIV... I noticed that Zrick was citing them as well. I read a few of their articles and was not impressed. So, I decided to do a quick google on MedRxIV, and here is what I found:
Unpublished eprints... so, in other words, NOT peer reviewed.
Sooo... they are not peer reviewed, BUT, I did actually read the entire first article you cited. The one that allegedly concluded that natural immunity has greater efficacy than mRna vaccine immunity. I can see why these articles do not meet the standards for publication. I'm not trying to be truculent here, just because the article does not agree to my viewpoint. I'm open to reading actual research that may differ from other research I've read... the problem with THAT article though, is it provides almost no supporting evidence... of anything. You did read it as well, correct? Okay, so, see below where I've highlighted. It says "we've conducted a restrospective observational study..." well, that means, that they only OBSERVED things, not actually entered individuals into an actual scientific medical trial/study that controls for variables. Okay, setting that aside for a second... notice that this "observational study" never mentions the size of the population it's studying! Are they looking at ten thousand people from Israel, or just ten people altogether? Also, Israel had a very high level of its population vaccinated... so there are less examples of unvaccinated persons, let alone persons that were infected that also chose not to be vaccinated. I'm in agreement that some of the science *does* appear to show that a 2 dose mRna vaccine *and* natural immunity from an infection may provide greater efficacy than just the vaccine, alone.
Now for the conclusion of that article. I noticed a bit of "switch a roo" in the Conclusion vs the Title of the article. The title of the articles suggest that it's comparing Natural COVID Immunity due to infection vs Immunity via mRna vaccine (2 dose). Part of the problem in the conclusion is, if you pay close attention, that the article considers "natural immunity" to actually be *one shot* of the mRna vaccine PLUS an infection. That is misleading. The authors of this epaper are not comparing natural immunity (by itself) with NO vaccine vs COVID Delta.... they are comparing natural immunity PLUS vaccine. So, again, in the CONCLUSION... it starts out by stating their *observational study* "demonstrates"... that "natural immunity" confers longer lasting and stronger protection. Then, in the second sentence of the CONCLUSION it tells you what they mean by "natural immunity." Notice that by "natural immunity," they used a group of Israelis that were *previously infected with COVID* AND *given a single does of the vaccine.* That is NOT what Zrick is arguing and it does not appear to be what you are arguing, either... you're both stating that natural immunity ALONE is stronger than the vaccine.
Did you realize that when you linked that article?