From the article, quoting from Nicolas Vabret, an assistant professor of medicine at the Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study:
"The mechanisms by which vaccines induce immunity are not necessarily the same as the ones resulting from natural infection," Vabret said. "So the immune protection resulting from a vaccine could last longer or shorter than the one resulting from natural infection."
This is significant in that natural infections by the virus provide more antigenic sites in which antibodies can be directed. These sites are not provided by the nucleic acid vaccines, which present only the spike antigens. It will no doubt be instructive to watch what happens with the Chinese vaccine CoronaVax (from Sinovax), which relies on chemically-inactivated whole virus. This is much different and so should be the immune response. Which is better (or worse) remains to be seen.
Curiously there was no mention in the article about mutations of the virus, an active area of research to monitor its changes and how they might negatively impact the current vaccine, and even antibody test kits. This has also raised concerns about changes of the virus from mink farms, and other possible inter-species infections and transmissions.
It would seem rather obvious that memory of the initial virus without mutations is most important regarding long lasting immunity. The only variable in its return seems mutation, since so many other viruses engage in similar activities to reappear - e.g. colds, and flu.. The rate of mutation of this virus over time will almost certainly play a significant role in immunity conferred by any vaccine or a natural infection. Which is all the more reason to stop it quickly. or rather more quickly than we are. The virus cannot mutate without replication. Allow mutations to continue, and the risk to those previously protected, or soon to be protected by a vaccine, might increase. Many of these viruses behave in a similar fashion. Watch the mutation rate.
It is only significant if it is true. And it is unlikely to be true.
The rRNA used to create the mRNA vaccines is taken from the original genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2. Why should it be any different than the CoV virions itself?
Mutations are expected but why is it a big concern or yours? Viruses mutate. That is what they do. It is rare that they mutate to a new strain with significant changes in properties. As of today there are no known mutations that will effect the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines. Please stop implying otherwise. We have enough misinformation coming from the anti-vaxxers.
Why do you think an inactivated virion would be superior to the Pfizer or Moderna mRNA? Do you want your immune system to unnecessarily fend off the other 27 non-neutralizing proteins? Why put the patients at risk of an adverse reaction to these unnecessary proteins. It is believed by some that the nucleocapsid protein may be responsible for short circuiting the complement cascade and killing patients. So why would you want to expose the patients to a non-neutralizing protein that may cause harm?
There has been NO FINDINGS that would indicate that the mRNA vaccines are less effective than a natural infection. On the other hand there are reports indicating that the vaccins have a higher efficacy than natural infection.
I do agree it is in everyone's best interest to get vaccinated and rid the Earth of this disease before it does mutate to a strain that the current vaccines cannot neutralize.
I also highly recommend that 2 weeks after the second shot that everyone get a quantitative antibody test for the S1 and RBD proteins. A qualtative test would be useless, it MUST be a quantitative test. This may give a benchmark for predicting the longevity of the vaccine's durable immunity. AT a minimum it will give peace of mind that you very likely have durable immunity, or not.
There are no cases or reinfection from symptomatic CoV patients. There is no evidence that the so called reinfections of asymptomatic patients actually were previously infected with CoV. Please stop spreading this misinformation. If it did not come from a peer reviewed study published, in print, in a reputable journal, it is not true.