https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
Since the Delta variant is so contagious there will be no significant herd immunity effect to protect the unvaccinated. The virus is now endemic and can't be eradicated so all of us can expect to be exposed multiple times throughout our lives.
https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/80-of-vaccinated-covid-carrier...
RNA levels spike to the same levels on PCR, but they decline faster, and culturable amounts of virus are lower in breakthrough infections, indicating a higher proportion of viral debris in breakthrough infections rather than virus:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.21262158v...
Even if you take the worst numbers out there vaccines still eliminate 50% of infections. And symptomology, viral load and transmissibility are correlated -- which means the vaccines is likely to be effictatious against transmissibility just like it is against disease.
The worst-case idea that breakthrough infections, even though they're much less severe, produce identical risk of transmission does not make any sense at all.
I would bet money that if everyone was vaccinated that the R0 of delta would be less than 1.0 and we would not have epidemic spread and that breakthrough superspreaders are incredibly rare.
I've already posted studies which contradicts the idea that breakthrough infections are equivalent to unvaccinated infections in terms of actual live viral load, which should show up as reduced transmissibility. And the reduction in severity of symptoms with vaccination is highly unlikely to come without a corresponding reduction in transmissibility. What is his scientific data showing that viral loads, symptoms and transmissibility have somehow become completely decoupled?
And we seem to have forgotten that most of the spread of this disease is caused by individual superspreaders. Only 20% of the infections are responsible for 80% of the forward transmission. If vaccines reduce severe transmission the same way they reduce severe disease then they could very well have a disproportional impact on r0.
> It's impossible to reach 100% coverage
The fact that we can't hit 100% coverage doesn't imply that vaccines in the population that we can vaccinate aren't highly effective at reducing transmission.
Also if you're just making an argument by authority, then go watch all the recent TWiV episodes. I don't necessarily agree with Herr Professor Doktor Racaniello about everything (delta really is a lot more transmissible/virulent), but the whole crew there would tend to agree with me, and wants to see the real transmissibility studies with real humans infecting real humans.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/effective...
The CDC article doesn't say anything other than "People who get vaccine breakthrough infections can be contagious" without any citation.
The actual study you cite only tests for viral RNA not infectious virus, they only cultured a single sample from a breakthrough infection to show that it could happen.
Other studies have found that viral RNA drops faster in vaccinated individuals, and that levels of culturable virus are lower at peak in vaccinated individuals indicating the presence of more viral debris than infectious virus:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.20.21262158v...
We also know that viral loads are correlated with transmissibility and symptoms, and that vaccines reduce severe symptoms. We know there's less infectious virus in breakthrough infections and that they're less severe. It is rational to expect a reduction in transmissibility.
All the kids under 16 have a vaccination rate of 0% and they still count and they commingle and provide a reservoir. The vaccination rate in 16-25 year olds is also probably not high enough to achieve herd immunity with delta. It isn't a particular mystery why its still spreading unless you assume kids don't exist.
A single number for vaccination status and herd immunity would only be meaningful if the population was randomly well-mixed. In reality kids are much more likely to see other kids every day than hang out with the elderly.
We are rolling it out to 16-17 year olds, which happens to be the ages of my kids and both had their first shots about a week ago. There may be some marginal benefit for youngsters, but those dose are better deployed elsewhere. Over 17s are already well vaccinated here.
I'm not at all anti-vaccine, they've transformed the UK, but there's just no point vaccing under 16s. We're deep into diminishing returns with that, and those doses are sorely needed in many other countries.
Maybe against community spread of infection.
The protection vaccines provide against overloaded hospitals, tragic avoidable deaths and paralysing additional lockdowns and mask policies is clear, though.
This all seems to be done in order to blame unvaccinated people - and more specifically unvaccinated Republican voters - for the fact that Covid is still spreading and causing deaths and economic damage. (Vaccination rates are also dangerously low amongst black Democrat voters, but of course it'd be politically unacceptable to blame them in the same way). The press keeps pushing the narrative that we could end Covid and all the damage it's doing if not for those evil unvaxxed people, even though this doesn't seem to be borne out by the experience of countries with higher vaccination rates or the scientific evidence.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/AA47/production/...
What I mean by punching yourself in the face is: Even if you don't have any family and you hate your neighbours, getting vaccinated is still in your own interests, because it stops you dying.