If they are pushing/submitting based on actual facts and studies, then I don't see the problem. It seems like the overall argument is following a pattern of
- A vaccination is currently a requirement for participating in society.
- There are studies showing that having the virues is just as effective (or more) than a vaccination.
- There are places where "having the vaccination" meets the requirement for participating in society.
And, from there, discussing why the US doesn't also follow this logic.
Now, I can't speak to the studies validity. And an argument can be made that it's harder to verify that someone has had the virus already or some such. Or one of any of a dozen other reasons "why not". But having a discussion of the "why not" seems perfectly reasonable.
- A vaccination is currently a requirement for participating in society.
- There are studies showing that having the virues is just as effective (or more) than a vaccination.
- There are places where "having the vaccination" meets the requirement for participating in society.
And, from there, discussing why the US doesn't also follow this logic.
Now, I can't speak to the studies validity. And an argument can be made that it's harder to verify that someone has had the virus already or some such. Or one of any of a dozen other reasons "why not". But having a discussion of the "why not" seems perfectly reasonable.