Why are you assuming a vaccine that even the people that make it clearly state has no data if it affects transmission or infection will change anything?!

I'm getting my info from WHO’s Chief Scientist, Dr Soumya Swaminathan
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/media-resources/science-in-5/episode-1

She says the vaccine will let us reach herd immunity safely.

I agree with the rollercoaster comment previously, bearing in mind there are 3 ways to stop a rollercoaster:
1. Placing a very large object (could be hard, like a block of concrete, or soft, like a sandpit) over the tracks. This will cause sudden deceleration, resulting in severe damage to the train, but the extent of wreckage and injury may be influenced by the nature of the barrier.
2. Deliberately applying controlled braking to the wheels of the train and/or rails. This will result in a reasonably safe stop in a fairly short time period, with perhaps a few minor injuries.
3. Not doing anything at all and allowing natural friction to eventually bring the train to a halt after many many loops of the track.

There seem to be various suggestions here (in covid terms) for how (2) might be achieved - in other words, measures that could be introduced to enable society to return to normal in a plausible and staged manner. Unfortunately I see absolutely zero evidence that any of the current incumbents in charge have either the desire or wisdom to achieve what would be quite a complex and difficult task. On the contrary, an increasing array of perverse incentives continue to evolve which take us further down the lockdown rabbit hole and away from what we previously called normality. In effect too many people are enjoying the lockdown 'ride', and/or seeking to avoid any jolt which applying the brakes would entail (be this from removal of economic protection measures, or temporary increases in pressure on the NHS). So I don't see any serious attempt at braking (i.e. dialling down the virus fear, reducing the severity of restrictions) being made.

This leaves options (1) and (3). My guess is actually option 3 will happen and there will be a gradual wearing away of restrictions as some are lifted and others are just ignored. Eventually the public will tire of virus news and the media will latch onto something which they decide is a bigger threat to society, and focus will switch to that. Unfortunately this will take a long time (probably years rather than months) and things will never return to exactly how they were - just as licencing rules about alcohol were never lifted after World War I.

The other risk is that (1) happens and that as a result of obsession with covid to the exclusion of everything else some unforeseen collapse occurs (economic or otherwise) resulting in a very hard landing with huge carnage in human terms. I am hoping this is unlikely but have to say am not totally confident in this respect.

I think this is a great summary of the potential avenues out.

I'll only add that I think - *if properly managed* - the vaccines could be a sensible route out via Option 2. It will give them the political cover to "de escalate hostilities" so to speak - but they have to make that choice. They could have done the same thing over the summer when restrictions were eased but they chose not to. If they choose to do it, then it doesn't really matter how effective the vaccine is etc - simply the fact that it exists will suffice.

As for Option 1: agreed. It doesn't necessarily have to be huge carnage in human terms - it just has to be an emotional counter-narrative that is powerful enough to break through the current fear-based narrative and "change the story". For example, there was that amazing 83 year old woman a couple of months ago who went viral as a lockdown sceptic - "Maureen from Barnsley" - now that particular story wasn't powerful enough, but it did break through and go viral and briefly change the narrative. Something like that but more powerful - focussing attention on the collateral damage of the restrictions (think about the 2015 refugee crisis and how European public opinion changed overnight when that poor refugee boy washed ashore dead). What will that story be? Completely unknown - but it could happen.

If the above doesn't happen via Options 1 and 2, then I agree - long term Option 3 is the most likely outcome as it slowly fades away (remember how everyone was so worried about terrorism from 2001 till about 3-4 years ago? Suddenly no one seems to talk about it or worry about it and the media is sensationalizing it anymore). If that happens, then I think Tier 3/4 (or higher) measures are simply unsustainable - it's only a question of how much vaccination is done before they lift those - definitely by the spring. But Tier 1/2 equivalent measures (basically mask-wearing, social distancing, capacity restrictions at venues etc, plus a vaccination that is compulsory in all but name - roughly similar to daily life in August/September this year) could last for a long time, or indefinitely till people naturally start ignoring them (the barista at my local coffee shop has stopped putting on her mask or caring if I wear mine when I go in every day - as long as it is just me - if her boss or other people are in there, then she wears it..).

Vaccine promotion again..
.

Why are you assuming a vaccine that even the people that make it clearly state has no data if it affects transmission or infection will change anything?!

I'm getting my info from WHO’s Chief Scientist, Dr Soumya Swaminathan
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/media-resources/science-in-5/episode-1

She says the vaccine will let us reach herd immunity safely.

Except you're not because you don't even understand the basics of what she's saying. It was also written in August before any Phase 3 results from any vaccines were known.

Lets try this again, slowly.
1) We have NO data to suggest ANY of the vaccines prevent infection OR transmission
2) Pfizer say this, Oxford say this, Moderna say this, the MHRA say this, the ECDC say this, the UK government say this.
3) Therefore, until we know different it has NO effect on "herd immunity" at all.
4) All we know is the vaccines reduce symptoms.

Maybe you should try getting your info from the people that actual invented, designed and made the stuff or the peer reviewed journals containing the data?

Maybe listen to the US CDC:

" the scientific community does not yet know if the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine will reduce such transmission."

Maybe an article in Nature:
"But none has demonstrated that it prevents infection altogether, or reduces the spread of the virus in a population. This leaves open the chance that those who are vaccinated could remain susceptible to asymptomatic infection — and could transmit that infection to others who remain vulnerable"

Maybe the Pfizer CEO:
"I think that's something that needs to be examined. We're not certain about that right now,' said Albert Bourla, when asked by Dateline's Lester Holt about whether the shot would prevent transmission during the interview, which aired Thursday night. "

Maybe the Lancet if that isnt good enough for you:
"Whether the vaccines prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 or mainly just protect against illness is largely unknown too. If the latter, achieving herd immunity through immunisation becomes a difficult prospect. "

I could go on but you should get the point.

1) We have NO data to suggest ANY of the vaccines prevent infection OR transmission

I'm taking it if it's offered because I'm interested in my own survival. But I'm very happy if it does protect others since there are indications that the vaccine could reduce virus transmission. But you might be right to have doubts, at least until the "observed reduction in asymptomatic infections", as Pollard's team call them are more robust. I'm happy it has been approved on grounds of efficacy and safety since that will reduce hospital cases, icu cases and deaths, which is what the government is monitoring.It's cheap as well!