That is correct. It is also a hypothetical. The ethical question is, at what level of vaccine efficacy, either against infection or against severe infection, do

That is correct. It is also a hypothetical. The ethical question is, at what level of vaccine efficacy, either against infection or against severe infection, do we stop mandating vaccines, for adults (see federal mandate) or, inexcusably, for kids (CA, SF)? Let's say 99/95 (traditional vaccines) is total vax. How about 75/50? How about 50/20? Where is the line where safetyism gives way to respect for individual freedom of choice? The way the argument is constructed, "mandate vaccinations to prevent spread and severe effects in the vaccinated population", it is unfalsifiable unless the vaccines completely fail, and even then there is the looming booster chain, which can also be mandated in perpetuity on the exact same shaky grounds. This also sets a precedent. Any infectious disease for which someone with sufficient lobbying spend creates a barely functional vaccine can become subject to total vax mandates.