Reading comprehension. The question on the table which kicking used was "eradication"
Again, he question always depends on what goal you are trying to set.
-If the goal is to prevent serious disease and death, all the data shows the vaccination is great or that. But that has consequences: 1) children and young people are not at serious risk of severe disease or death, and 2) people are responsible for their own health....if you don't think they can make choices over their own body why do you let them chose to have children or to vote.
-If the goal is to eradicate covid, yes the vaccines are worthless for that goal. Against the omicron, even the best shots seem only 30% effective at preventing transmission or catching Covid, and the early booster data coming in isn't much better. The virus is mutating, there are other variants that will arise, and there is a zoonotic reserve which makes it worse.
-If the goal is reducing covid transmission, well that question is much harder. The first question is why? For the vast majority of the population they will be alright so we are talking now about the very old, and very unhealthy and the immunocompromised (who are, BTW, at risk with the flu too and we don't do this with the flu so we are just talking about overall numbers and how many are acceptable...and before you saying "killing grandma", I have skin in this game with both kids and elderly grandparents). The next question is how much does it cost? And that's where I get off the mandate train....if the benefit (particularly with the omicron) is minimal, but the cost is high (and it is...people's livelihood, side effect risks, repetitive shots more than 2, stigmitizing an entire group, civil rights violations) I'm off the mandate train. I'd reconsider if we had a vaccine that actually worked better and/or had less side effects and a longer proven track record of safety.