For instance, in FL if you study breakthrough infections in June vs. August, of course there are going to be more per capita in August because community spread was so high in comparison. If you study FL in November there will be significantly fewer breakthrough infections because community spread is so much lower. That doesn't mean the vaccine efficacy vs. infection waned in August and then got better in November.
So, we’re all good then. Vaccination reduces risk, not eliminates, at the individual level.
Which means it’s in an individual’s best interest for community spread to be as low as possible.
Other mitigations will have some impact, but they’re nowhere near as good and they’re definitely not durable like vaccination. Nobody wants to do them forever.
Now it gets more complicated.
For “reasons”, we cannot:
- mandate vaccination, even though that would be most effective.
- have vaccine passports to create vaccinated bubbles, little groups acting like there was a mandate.
- have other mitigations, since they’re not good enough compared to vaccination.
This is the confusion. An individual should get vaccinated since that offers the best personal protection. But they shouldn’t ask the community to do the things that reduce community spread even though that’s also the best personal protection.
Past all the talking points and debates, there’s only 2 sets of things occurring:
1-Stuff that will reduce community spread. Thus providing the best personal protection.
2-Stuff that will prolong higher levels of community spread. Thus being a direct threat to both the person and others.
We need the first. Tired of the second. All the takes of “I’m vaccinated, but it’s cool for others to prolong higher spread” is the second. It’s directly saying living in a less safe world is good. Why bother getting vaccinated to begin with.