I worded it poorly (and it wasn't really anything worth saying in the context of COVID), but:
A population with 5% naturally-induced/80% vaccine-induced immunity might see more spread of a new variant than a population with 25%/60%, however the total outcomes would still be better in the first population; so "less protected" was definitely the wrong thing to say.
Naturally-induced immunity for COVID is stronger because it targets more than just the spike protein, and it presumably[0] grants better mucosal immunity than our current vaccines induce, but of course the risk/cost of natural infection is very high.
A population with 5% naturally-induced/80% vaccine-induced immunity might see more spread of a new variant than a population with 25%/60%, however the total outcomes would still be better in the first population; so "less protected" was definitely the wrong thing to say.
Naturally-induced immunity for COVID is stronger because it targets more than just the spike protein, and it presumably[0] grants better mucosal immunity than our current vaccines induce, but of course the risk/cost of natural infection is very high.
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8358136/