I do wish they spent more time exploring it
Yeah, the jury is out, but it's really a low priority for study. What would that tell us? There are several possibilities:
* Natural immunity is much better than vaccines: If this were the case we still wouldn't tell people to get infected on purpose given that it has killed millions. This will only "help" by giving cover to previously infected people who don't want the vaccine.
* Natural immunity and vaccines are similarly effective: In this case, the recommendation would still be to get vaccinated, and again the benefit would be to allow previously infected folks a reason to skip the vaccine if they preferred without significant harm to themselves or their community.
* Vaccines are much better than natural immunity: This would possibly help convince some people who were previously infected to get the vaccines for better protection, so that's a reasonable public health goal. But not a huge one given that the vaccines are so safe and easy that people should be getting them regardless of the above info.
So to sum up, it's a worthwhile area of investigation but not particularly critical. I'd rather spend time figuring out if lower doses are as effective (so more people can get vaccinated around the world) or when booster shots are most effective. They should also be studying giving an mRNA booster to the Johnson & Johnson (or AstraZeneca) people as their protection is more limited than those of us who got the Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines.