[neuronic]

> which should work just as well 6 months later

Do you have clinical evidence for that? I doubt it. OP still has a more valid point. Public trust in the vaccine and its apparent effectiveness ASAP after the vaccination campaign begins will be gigantic factors in its success.

We all know that a hard lockdown brings down the new-infection numbers WEEKS after beginning the lockdown, yet there are still a lot of people on Twitter, YT and at demonstrations (at least here in Germany) where folks are angry that the lockdown doesn't work 2 DAYS after its beginning.

The amount of truly wary/ignorant people out there is around 5-15% of the entire population in Germany and handing out a 63%-effective vaccine will be fuel to their bullshit stories.

I wish people would start taking this more seriously. We have a huge chunk of the population (5-15%) where discussions don't work anymore because their arguments aren't based in a common reality (e.g. "viruses exist and may pose a threat" is surprisingly often not a supported opinion).

[ed25519FUUU]

> We all know that a hard lockdown brings down the new-infection numbers WEEKS after beginning the lockdown, yet there are still a lot of people on Twitter, YT and at demonstrations (at least here in Germany) where folks are angry that the lockdown doesn't work 2 DAYS after its beginning.

In the spirit of understanding, in your words what are the biggest arguments against forcing a hard lock down?

[BurningFrog]

> Do you have clinical evidence for that?

I'm no epidemiologist, but I understand this is the how booster vaccine shots typically work.

I care less about public trust and the PR angle, and more about getting as many people protected as possible. If dumb people say dumb things matter much less.