So it stands to reason that if the vaccine were effective, after the vaccine blitzkrieg that's going on now, the vulnerable should be ok.

I don't believe I am obligated to take an experimental vaccine in order to reduce the risk that I will transmit a virus with a 99.95% survival rate for people under 70. And while I'm optimistic about the prospect for these vaccines to reduce transmission in the short run, it remains to be seen how well they will work over the long term against the evolving virus.

They will work fine because this virus can't evolve for shit. It's only produced 2-3 strains and only has one external protein it can mutate. The current vaccines are still good enough against it, and it doesn't take long to edit an mRNA vaccine either.

> I will transmit a virus with a 99.95% survival rate for people under 70.

This math is wrong, you should think of it as getting a flu but ten times worse that also gives you a permanent heart condition. And remember that the flu is already ten times worse than you think it is, because the last thing you thought was a flu was just a cold.

> you should think of it as getting a flu but ten times worse that also gives you a permanent heart condition

Perhaps we should think of it as getting SARS-Cov-2 and as much as 1/3 of people don't even know they're infected.

Unhealthy people are often really hit hard, the most vulnerable have a substantial risk of death.

But an overwhelming number of healthy people are fine, and given the prolonged disruption of normal life, those people suffer vast consequences from interventions that outweigh catching the virus.

Children especially are being sacrificed for the elderly and chronically ill.