> Are you implying that shedding does not correlate with being symptomatic? No, I'm saying being vaccinated correlates with having fewer or no symptoms, which

> Are you implying that shedding does not correlate with being symptomatic? No, I'm saying being vaccinated correlates with having fewer or no symptoms, which leads to different behavior. > Your second link does not invalidate the first, and that seems to support vaccinated recover faster, hence they have less time to spread. The crucial period is the first few days, especially before symptom onset. If you are symptomatic, you are probably at home after this period. > I've came across the UK weekly reports, there's still much controversy on the population data used in those reports Good point, I stand corrected. That said, data from Israel also suggests little to no reduction in infections among vaccinated. > The question is genuine, what are the assumptions that would support mass vaccination, instead of only people at risk of severe cases, and have been proven wrong? The wrong assumption is that vaccines "protect others" and that they will substantially reduce infections. If they actually did substantially reduce infections, we should observe that effect everywhere - we don't. Whatever reduction there is, it's likely counter-acted by the modified behavior of the people who still rely on these assumptions to be true. Either way, none of it justifies mandatory vaccination, or the scapegoating of the vaccine hesitant.