Just for the sake of saying so, Science Magazine is not a lightweight journal, and it is very far from any kind of 'conservative' political bias. . .
To state things clearly - "people who once had a SARS-CoV-2 infection [are] much less likely than never-infected, vaccinated people to get Delta, develop symptoms from it, or become hospitalized with serious COVID-19." And, just to be clear, "they caution that intentional infection among unvaccinated people would be extremely risky." So, no 'infection parties', please. . .
The article notes that a single-dose 'booster given to previously-infected persons reduces their risk even further, but, from the start, 'natural immunity' confers more robust resistance to future infection, and for a longer time, than does vaccination of never-infected persons.
Which is what I was saying a couple months ago.
The thing I don't understand is that, judging from public rhetoric, 'natural immunity' either doesn't exist or isn't worth talking about. There are only 'The Vaccinated' and 'The Unvaccinated'. People like me are counted among The Unvaccinated, when we actually have superior immunity to that conferred by vaccination. We 'Survivors' should be counted among 'The Immunized', whether that immunity came from the natural response of our bodies to infection, or from a vaccine. But there seems to be a very stubborn resistance to that very basic scientific truth, and I have no idea why. . .