Since the vaccinated are getting infected at vastly lower rates and being hospitalized at even lower rates, the mandates still have a huge amount of utility.
How?
By reducing future infections.
Had those who were not vaccinated been vaccinated, our hospitals would not be overflowing.
That is not true. Staff shortages are affected by many health workers who refuse mandated vaccines when they believe their own antibodies are sufficient to protect them.
You're claiming that because people refused to get vaccinated, therefore if they had been vaccinated it would have had no effect?!
That's bizarre,
Let's try this again: While
some of those who were vaccinated got Omicron, it is a lower percentage, by a lot, than those who relied on their "natural antibodies." Ditto the percentages who got hospitalized.
Do you
dispute those claims? If so, on what basis?! If not, then what is your point?
You act like the only choices are infected or not and that there is no difference between the two.
That makes no sense.
I agree, and yet that seems to be your position.
We don't know if there are long term implications from Omicron yet, but we do know that the more folks who get it the greater the chance that it will mutate further.
You may want to reread that sentence and think about what it means. It is not a strong endorsement of mandated vaccines.
The more people who catch the Omicron Variant (the direct antecedent of "it" in "who get it") the greater the chance that it (again, the Omicron Variant) will mutate further (from the original COVID-19 virus).
I am sorry that you had such a hard time following that.
And yes, reducing the likelihood of further mutations is very much a good idea and therefore a strong endorsement of mandated vaccinations (not vaccines).