Not for a while now.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...

"In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated)."

No difference in infectiousness. And with it, no logical justification for mandates. But this is Google and factions within it will certainly not give up a chance to get rid of what remains of the conservative/libertarian part of their workforce.

That's not incompatible with my point: vaccines are not 100% protection, as medical professional warned us about since before the vaccines were deployed. Household transmission is the worst-case scenario because you're talking about very long periods of unmasked shared airspace, often with poor ventilation, and close contact.

For an employer, this tells you that you can't rely on one thing to prevent spread but the combination of masks, vaccination, air filtration, etc. remains effective.

There's a substantive difference between none and "not 100%". Medical professionals didn't warn anyone about zero effectiveness < 12 months after deployment. They said, repeatedly, that vaccines were 95% effective and anyone who had any concerns about the trials were just crazy and unscientific.

Probably hospitals and care homes are actually the worst-case scenarios for viral transmission because they're full of people who are already sick or have weak immune systems.

You've ignored the point about illogicality completely.

> transmit _less_ than the unvaccinated.

you will have to come with a citation needed to make that claim. I have seen studies showing exactly the opposite of what you claim.

You also have to factor the social aspect. Vaccinated people, thinking they are protected, are way less careful now and therefore have a higher propensity to transmit the virus.