Still, I don't think it makes much of a difference either way, especially for kids who don't have much to fear from covid.
{{citation needed}}
My point is that this is unsubstantiated.
And it does make a big difference, because this reduces the likelihood of children going through multiple periods of infectivity: the fewer times children are infectious to others, on average, the more herd immunity we have, collectively, against SARS-CoV-2.
> “It appears from the literature that natural infection provides immunity, but that immunity is seemingly not as strong and may not be as long lasting as that provided by the vaccine...
> But not everyone agrees with this interpretation. “The data we have right now suggests that there probably isn’t a whole lot of difference” in terms of immunity to the spike protein
> Memoli highlights real world data such as the Cleveland Clinic study18 and points out that while “vaccines are focused on only that tiny portion of immunity that can be induced” by the spike, someone who has had covid-19 was exposed to the whole virus, “which would likely offer a broader based immunity” that would be more protective against variants. The laboratory study offered by the FDA22 “only has to do with very specific antibodies to a very specific region of the virus [the spike],” says Memoli. “Claiming this as data supporting that vaccines are better than natural immunity is shortsighted and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complexity of immunity to respiratory viruses.”