Yup. I get the impression that if effectiveness against infection is less than 80%, people interpret it as equivalent to zero. There's nothing in between. It's frustrating, especially when it comes from people who should be full-throated advocates for vaccination (including for Covid).

Okay, not aware that other vaxx don't prevent transmission, largely bc they come close enough that the general public doesn't see examples of transmission in the wild. Covid-19 is the 1st I've known of where everyone knows it doesn't prevent transmission, just makes it less harmful.

To the general public, this is in fact a big difference, and the Covid-19 vaxx not being a near complete answer in itself is a big letdown. (Still mad that there's been no effort to incentivize, let alone mandate, ventilation solutions.)

So yeah, below 80% may make a big break for the public. What protection there is is not nothing, but the difference between getting sick and not getting sick matters.

I think we're all on the same side here. Layered solutions are the best. The problem is that fringe voices have taken this completely to the other extreme and basically say that vaccination has no effect on infection & transmission, which is as wrong as asserting that it prevents it perfectly.

Yes, thinking vaccination has no effect is an ignorant take, but I believe expectation of similar results from Covid-19 vaxx as previous vaccines and design of political messaging relying on similar results played a part in all that. That's where we may disagree.

We didn't in fact rely on layering, we relied on vaxx, and when that didn't prevent transmission as well as previous vaxx, the Biden administration gave up.