The problem is not the vaccine, it is when you actual contract COVID-19 later on. If the vaccine sufficiently suppresses the symptoms, but doesn't actual prevent infection, there is a change you can spread the virus asymptomatically.

I see how that's important. On the other hand, it's not as big of a deal to spread the virus if everyone has protection from the symptomatic risks. We should still shelter in place, but even turning active cases into carries would reduce loss of life (presuming we continue regular testing so people can KNOW if they are a carrier)

> On the other hand, it's not as big of a deal to spread the virus if everyone has protection from the symptomatic risks

Assuming everybody got the vaccine in the same instant, which they would not.

> We should still shelter in place, but even turning active cases into carries would reduce loss of life (presuming we continue regular testing so people can KNOW if they are a carrier)

We've all seen how people are behaving right now: "Oh I'm young, forget about grandma". How do you think they'd behave knowing that they've been vaccinated? It's important to consider the sociological conditions in which an intervention is deployed. Unfortunately, our present society has a very large number of self-centred individuals.

This is a great way to turn the anti-vaxxers, hahah.

The more people take the vaccine, the less society bothers to social distance and other low-tech things, the more dangerous not taking the vaccine becomes.

> It has been heavily modified, first so it cannot cause infections

Amusingly, lives would probably be saved if they had kept the base virus used for vaccination infectious. It's just the common cold, and the side effects are currently only a headache and fever, so getting the vaccination virus secondhand would be better than getting coronavirus, and you'd be protected after.

Common colds can occasionally be serious for people who are severely immunocompromised in other ways.