> This seems unrelated

It's the exact effect you're describing. Seatbelts aren't 100% efffective. When they were mandated, a common criticism was that this would increase risky driving. It did, a bit. But not enough to negate the significant safety effects of wearing a seatbelt.

> My issue is the poor effectiveness of this vaccine

One, it's still preclinical. We don't know its effectiveness in humans. But two, your argument is still historically invalid. Vaccines have been effective at the community level without being totally effective individually. And again, your concerns would apply more to PreP than the vaccine.

Your hypothesis wasn't a bad instinct. But you could have followed up on it or, when confronted with evidence against it, chosen not to double down.

I can't tell if you're arguing in bad faith or if you just don't actually understand anything I've been saying.

> Your hypothesis wasn't a bad instinct. But you could have followed up on it or, when confronted with evidence against it, chosen not to double down.

...huh? What solitary point of evidence has even been presented? First it was pointed out to me that I'm not a psychic, which is true but is not evidence of anything. Then it was pointed out to me that seatbelts save lives and contraception prevents pregnancy, which are also true statementsnbut are also not evidence of anything, given that both are highly effective at what they do.

If you want to present evidence of something, why don't you start by presenting evidence of this:

> Vaccines have been effective at the community level without being totally effective individually.

Let's start with, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness? Then, let's move on to, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness and was released to the public despite there already existing a 99% effective prophylactic drug for the same disease? And what was the outcome there?

If you still don't get the point I'm making, then nothing will change this and we should just end the exchange.