>>which follows some of my ideas so closely that I am afraid to fall into the trap of having found an echo chamber article on the internet "proving" my idea. Have not seen much "wrong" (but areas where I am out of my depth) except perhaps focusing too much on "esacape" fitness and vs. hightened infection risk in "immunity-unchanged" population.

Suffice to say that traditional vaccines are effective because attenuated or less virulent similar bugs provide plenty for the immune system to hook onto and remember, plus most previously vaccinated bugs are relatively stable, unlike covidae. Certainly mRNA vaccines are incredible clever, programming a particular spike protein antibody response, but it makes perfect sense to consider whether the covid tendency to mutate might affect that spike. That would explain this week's suggestion that quoted mRNA effectiveness of up to 95% now appears to be 50% at most, which is well under previously acceptable effectiveness for a vaccine. Old science involving T-Cell and other immune mechanisms also appears to be of heightened importance for covidae. With the arrival of delta and other variants (fwiw there's even a zeta variant now), people who acted too certain too early, hopefully have the capacity and self-awareness to now realise why scientific process involves informed contrarianism rather than uncritical certainty.

>>Some politicians already argue for a monthly discount in individual health insurance cost for vaccinated - might be better in the long run.

Current gist is that vaccines don't prevent delta infection or infectivity or presumably any of the others up to zeta, though the later variants seem to flare like matches alongside the delta forest fire. Latest UK stats do show vaccine benefit >50y but a) why choose 50y when most deaths are over 80; smudging of data has been a problem throughout this pandemic and they seem to keep coming up with new ways; and b) echoing your earlier question: where's the breakdown of mRNA vs traditional vaccines, bearing in mind that not all Western C19 vaccines are mRNA programmers.

>>BTW on topics of "data to look at": some of my pet peeves echoed for/in the States:
>>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/09/america-is-flying-blind-when-it-comes-to-the-delta-variant

A cynic would say it's because a) breakthrough infections are embarrassing when so many politicians and celebrity scientists have been thundering that vaccination ends risk, and b) breakthrough infections appear to be up to 6 times more fatal than unvaccinated- suggesting that if you do get this endemic bug you're better off unvaccinated. This is not quite accurate as it relies on data smudging that now sees its creators hoist on their own petard when smudging has the opposite effect.

>>Nozy me: What is your line of argument on if/when/what to vaccinate for your offspring or even younger (aka kids) ?

Here in NZ there is no C19 and kids aren't eligible for vaccine yet, with every day that drifts by adding possibility that evolving (not settled) science and/or a weakening epidemic may not require much decisionmaking at all.