>>Your #1 is wrong - it does not reduce likelihood of infection (CDC). It might reduce severity of infection but even that protection wanes quickly and comes at a risk.

Omicron seems able to break through even triple-jabbed protection. That may be because the most prevalent C19 jabs involve a particular C19 spike protein that omicron has mutated repeatedly, reducing effectiveness of a jab that targets the original version.

This contrasts with traditional vaccines for bugs like measles, polio, smallpox etc that a) don't mutate as readily and b) have used the same proven attenuated or killed vaccines for decades at a time, making vaccination much more of a no-brainer. It's interesting that communities with >95% vaccination against measles can sit at 60% for C19; rather than assessing the difference, some call them "antivaxxers" which clearly is the wrong answer if they've been 95% compliant before now.

It's worth considering that mass vaccination campaigns for public benefit seek to reach "herd immunity" so that the population as a whole is safe. 95% is about the level needed for herd immunity against extremely infectious measles; if measles vaccination rate drops to 90%, epidemics can be expected sooner or later.

If C19 vaccines do not prevent transmission, even after the 3rd shot, it's not possible to reach herd immunity- meaning everybody can expect to get the bug eventually, whether vaccinated or not. Really the authorities need to be clearer about this, since a lot of the rhetoric still is about mass vaccination to make everybody safe.

As for Omicron: from south Africa I'm sure you know better than any of us that omicron may be highly infectious but so far is so mild that it's not easy to tally the infection rate. This could be good news since Jenner's first vaccine was mild cowpox that confers immunity to the far nastier smallpox; if mild omicron sweeps through society and confers immunity, the pandemic could be over.