We’ll never know. We have no proper controls. Just because B comes after A does not mean A implies B.
I’m exaggerating (some of our measures seem performative, but it looks like vaccines do a good job preventing severe illness), but places like Sweden would be decent to look at. They’ve had much better outcomes with nowhere near the restrictions.
It's a fast enough where Iceland is now experiencing its largest wave yet, despite having a nearly fully vaccinated population. And why would vaccination stop mutated strains from spreading?
>>I don't see how that's relevant to my original response.
It's relevant to whether any one country has cause to mandate vaccination.
>>Mutations occur irrespective of any human constructs such as nations, countries, borders, etc.
My point is that - even if vaccination affected the size of the infected population and thus the opportunity for the virus to mutate - one country's decision to vaccinate will not meaningfully affect the global vaccination rate and therefore the global mutation rate.
At an incredibly reduced rate, and mutations generally do not spread to others.
> Moreover, the global population of unvaccinated will not be meaningfully affected by any one country's decision to mandate vaccination.
I don't see how that's relevant to my original response.
> And the mutation rate is dependent on the size of the global population of virus carriers, not one country's.
I don't follow. Mutations occur irrespective of any human constructs such as nations, countries, borders, etc.
> So all-in-all, I see very weak justification for such a heavy handed mandate, no matter how useful I think vaccination is.
Take the opposite case. Nobody vaccinates, we stop caring. What is the outcome?
Half-assed approaches will only slow, not stop, the pandemic. It's not very hard to think critically about this...