To repeat what I've said several times now (how can I be more clear?), the risk of vaccine escape does not imply a particular public health policy. There is no procedure that tells us what policy we should choose based on vaccine escape risk, because it isn't the only consideration. It is irresponsible to make authoritative pronouncements on a complex public health policy issue when you're completely fixated on one particular risk. Unless you're willing to describe EVERY possible action as a public health risk, in which case you should be honest and upfront about the obscure, misleading choice of language.
> the risk of vaccine escape does not imply a particular public health policy
It does have major ramifications for public health policy - you're disagreeing with many experts in the field when you make these claims.
> There is no procedure that tells us what policy we should choose based on vaccine escape risk, because it isn't the only consideration
Of course it isn't the only consideration - no one claimed that it was. This is a straw man.
> It is irresponsible to make authoritative pronouncements on a complex public health policy issue when you're completely fixated on one particular risk.
We are in agreement on this in general, and I admit my comment could have been worded less strongly.
But again, these ideas are being espoused by experts publishing peer-reviewed literature. They are not "fixated on one particular risk", and if you take the time to read the cited literature you'll find rich discussion of many subtle nuances and tradeoffs. That is as authoritative as it gets. There is nothing irresponsible about sharing the knowledge and opinions put forth by world class researchers.
I agree that vaccine escape risk has real implications. I meant to say it doesn't determine whether mass vaccination is prudent. I explained what is missing to make that determination in another comment. Do we agree on that?
reply