There is not widespread vaccination, though. That's where your argument falls apart.
Look at the trends in Italy, UK, US, for example.
I agree the vaccine helps, but there is no clear impact on reducing spread if you look at infection data in aggregate.
We've gone from 0% vaccinated, to 60-70% with no discernable dip in infection counts.
Taking for example the NL numbers: we have twice as many cases/day as during last winter's peak, but only half as many deaths/day. Naively, that suggests that the vaccines reduce case mortality by 75%. But that data is also hopelessly incomplete: we recently reinstated some of our lockdown measures, so the number of infections/day is stabilizing, but fatalities/day will probably keep rising for another week.
I am disputing that lockdowns have led to any discernable difference in outcomes over the long run in regards to case counts.
New Zealand may be the special case where they were able to actually completely halt inbound travel. But obviously their situation doesn't generalize.
If you disagree, use hard data to support your assertions that vaccines have noticeably reduced infection rate.
The one following the science is the one using the data, by the way. Anything else is religion.
If you choose not to spend 1 minute to Google it, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to cite my comment like a research paper when the verification is a Google search away.
If you disagree with the stats, feel fee to provide evidence that refutes it. That would enhance the conversation.
In the US, the CDC stopped publishing the data one would need to get answers on this in May. For some reason.
Citation please, because you're challenging the entire field of immunology here.
