I still don't buy the evidence you've given. Sure, there's not hard clinical evidence that I can point to that demonstrates that there is zero viral shedding from vaccinated individuals. But I don't claim that. I claim that it is highly likely that it knocks down viral shedding significantly. My reading of the monkey paper you cited earlier demonstrates to me a clear mechanism for reduction in viral shedding through the lower airway, thus reducing viral transmission through respiratory droplets during vocalization!

I don't think you're drawing a distinction between pathologically immunocompromised individuals, and individuals who may not have as robust an immune response as others, but who can receive a vaccine. In someone who is pathologically immunocompromised, you should 100% be wearing a mask around them normally. They are not safe if you do not because they are vulnerable to a wide number of pathogens. If they are simply elderly or at-risk, let's get them vaccinated!

My mom is elderly and very vulnerable, but she is not pathologically immunocompromised. She has a reaction to flu vaccines. I will most definitely be recommending to her that she receive either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine. There may be an adverse reaction, but she'll be a hell of a lot safer than if she didn't receive the vaccine and catches COVID. At some point people will stop wearing masks in the community (Neither you nor I have any control over this), and she will have to decide for herself if she chooses to enter the community unmasked, or if she will wear an N95 for the rest of her life.

And, as I mentioned earlier, at the end of the day, what will happen will happen. Do you think the United States will go into a full China-style lockdown at some point to protect people who are unvaccinated after the vaccine has reached wide distribution? It's not gonna happen! It doesn't matter how either of us feels about this. It's just not gonna happen. The best plan we have for moving forward is to get as many people as we possibly can vaccinated. Based on my understanding of immunological mechanisms I believe that it is highly likely this will reduce community-transmission (you haven't convinced me to let go of my suspicion based on the evidence presented, and I think the monkey paper in fact strengthens my argument). For those that refuse to be vaccinated, or that are pathologically immunocompromised, their best bet will be increased access to N95 masks to actually filter incoming air, and the fact that they will once again have increased access to the healthcare system that they do not now have.

What is your alternate proposal? Do you think the US will lock-down and mandate masks for the next 10 years, even after widespread vaccine distribution? Remember, we are not talking about science here, we are talking about policy. And despite Dr. Rifkin's faith in the angels of our better nature, and that "Our non-rational sides should inspire and inform reality, not dictate our perception of it," again, I invite you both to visit an Oklahoma WalMart and confront the fact that policy does not follow these humanitarian ideals. To quote from Ben Rhodes' memoir, "We take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be."