I think the attempt at "gotcha" is the idea hinges on "nobody has ALL the answers" or "such and such hasn't been proven 100%."

Those are impossible standards and if one is so recalcitrant to demand that standard, they will ensure their side is "right."

Legitimate studies show the shot is reducing the likelihood of people getting it. Is it also showing that if one does get it, their outcome will be better vs. one who hasn't gotten a shot. Through contact tracing and subsequent testing based on tracing, evidence is showing that folks who have gotten the shot are far less likely to be the ones spreading the virus.

These statements are all being shown to be true because researchers, doctors, and others are gathering more data every day to examine.


Now, I do understand one of the arguments to the contrary...that if a person who is not in the high risk group (say a fit 20 year old) doesn't want to get a shot and research show that a fit 20 year old has a mortality rate of well under 1%, then really why the requirement for that person to vaccinate?

I understand that.

I think a lot of it has to go back to the initial poor messaging and lack of federal leadership at the beginning (NOT saying the feds should have been making rules for all, just better at messaging) then it spilled into resistance and truth seeking to fit one's own views. So now because of the chasm that has developed, governments think bright line rules are necessary.

It's an accumulation of 16 months of nonsense that fair minded people don't deserve, but the fringes have demanded by their petulant behavior.