You are linking to correspondence, not to the study, the study suggests the opposite. Saying they are completely ineffective is wrong based on what we know, to

You are linking to correspondence, not to the study, the study suggests the opposite. Saying they are completely ineffective is wrong based on what we know, to the best of my knowedge. I read, I talk to friends and family in the medical community, I am not an expert. My understanding is that the vaccines have some effectiveness in preventing further infection but aren't fully effective, as evidenced by the study in Lancet which you indirectly linked to. Your letter in reaction to this study: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/alrticle/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/alrticle/PIIS1473-... Here's the author's reply to the correspondence: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694752/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8694752/ Just because peak viral load is apparently the same doesn't mean infection duration or transmission rates are the same, and the study suggests they aren't, in part because of faster decline in viral load among vaccinated folks. Of course that data is only about delta. The science may change, and I follow the science. Getting back to what I said, you know that, in the US, vaccine hesitancy is correlated with both less mask usage and less social distancing, right? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592035/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33592035/ If your idea is true, and the vaccine is completely ineffective, that still suggests unvaccinated folks are more likely to get infected with COVID, and to transmit it. Getting back to the article, "Bastian said Delta has placed nearly 1,900 people on Delta’s “no-fly” list for refusing to comply with masking requirements" Those aren't people I particularly want to fly with during this pandemic, but I do find the scope creep of the federal no fly list, as opposed to the company's list, disturbing.