Besides the impact on business (from sick workers, contamination or even fines¹), herd immunity can be leveraged by vaccination. Nobody really want to talk anym

Besides the impact on business (from sick workers, contamination or even fines¹), herd immunity can be leveraged by vaccination. Nobody really want to talk anymore about herd immunity because of how to concept was used during the first wave earlier this year. Herd immunity is not a magic bullet and will not make those who decided not to be vaccinate immune. It is just with a higher threshold, you reduce the probability of infection inside the not immune population. The concept was distorted during the first believing on the self immuninity response to the virus and that the immunity will be a "once for all" scenario. The damage is done in the public view about how the concept is perceived and tossed away. However, the main logic about massive vaccination is mostly about herd immunity (and the hypothesises that the vaccine will have a lifetime/long enough action and no mutation of the virus will change it enough to render the vaccine useless). So to answer, > taking the vaccine does little to prevent others for catching the [virus] Yes, with a high enough threshold, herd immunity will reduce the probability of others in your environment to get the virus. You can see it like a network effect where nodes that could be infected finish by being surrounded by nodes preventing infected nodes to reach high-risk ones modulo the hypotheses stipulated above.² Besides that they are also social, economic, politic reasons to push to massive vaccination programs. But for me, herd immunity reasons are the why, I tend to be in favour of a nation-scale vaccination program. ¹ For example in the Netherlands if a worker is contaminated at his workplace, the company have to close their offices during two weeks and pay a fine.