You note that the CDC recommendation regarding mask wearing is long overdue, and should have happened in April. You "imagine that there were political reasons that it did not." I believe you may have forgotten that there were technical and logistical, not political, reasons that it did not. First, back in April, the general consensus was that only N95 masks could effectively protect people from getting infected. Second, there was no published premise, as yet, that wearing masks could prevent the wearer from infecting others. And finally, there was a concern that if a mask mandate or recommendation were issued, it would result in a rush to horde whatever N95 masks remained in what was, at that time, a very limited supply that was sorely needed by front line workers.
You wrote, "This has a lot of implications. If the vaccine prevents disease in 95% of people, but it cannot impact transmission, what is the effect on the 5% of people in whom the vaccine isn’t all that effective? Must they remain inside…forever?"
There's a big assumption in there ... that you know you are one of the 5%. It might be possible in principle (by measuring antibody and t-memory cell levels) but in practice, almost nobody outside research studies will get those tests after a vaccination.
So in practice ... the 5% will get SARS-CoV-2. And a fraction of that 1/20 (say, 1%) will get serious disease. It's an imperfect world. Note that the Moderna vaccine, at least, seems to prevent nearly 100% of serious disease in the tested population--all the serious cases were in the placebo arm.
You note that the CDC recommendation regarding mask wearing is long overdue, and should have happened in April. You "imagine that there were political reasons that it did not." I believe you may have forgotten that there were technical and logistical, not political, reasons that it did not. First, back in April, the general consensus was that only N95 masks could effectively protect people from getting infected. Second, there was no published premise, as yet, that wearing masks could prevent the wearer from infecting others. And finally, there was a concern that if a mask mandate or recommendation were issued, it would result in a rush to horde whatever N95 masks remained in what was, at that time, a very limited supply that was sorely needed by front line workers.
So, as long as you encourage questioning ...
You wrote, "This has a lot of implications. If the vaccine prevents disease in 95% of people, but it cannot impact transmission, what is the effect on the 5% of people in whom the vaccine isn’t all that effective? Must they remain inside…forever?"
There's a big assumption in there ... that you know you are one of the 5%. It might be possible in principle (by measuring antibody and t-memory cell levels) but in practice, almost nobody outside research studies will get those tests after a vaccination.
So in practice ... the 5% will get SARS-CoV-2. And a fraction of that 1/20 (say, 1%) will get serious disease. It's an imperfect world. Note that the Moderna vaccine, at least, seems to prevent nearly 100% of serious disease in the tested population--all the serious cases were in the placebo arm.