> just about the idea that recovered individuals would be less protected than a vaccinated individual on average.

I don't think its so much about the idealized immune response, but that in general, people's immune response to natural infection seems to widely vary, with many not having much of a robust response.

It very well may be that a good immune response to natural infection may be better than one from an mRNA vaccine targeting the spike protein - but in aggregate the vaccine will be more successful because its induces a more consistent response.