This doesn't address my question. In early 2021, people like me were told that, even if we personally faced little risk, we should get vaccinated in order to prevent retransmission to vulnerable populations. (Neutralizing antibodies are indeed the mechanism for this.) I thought that was sensible and I complied. In hindsight, was that guidance correct? There is no "stipulation" besides correctly accounting for the facts.
The debate was about the merits of specific engineering choices in comparison to natural immunity. Some high-profile scientists intimated that concentrated RBD targeting would be more durable than natural immunity, whereas other people predicted the opposite. In retrospect, who was right, and who was wrong?Quote:
That is not my claim. There was not a way to predict how durable vaccination would be. I don't think anyone was naive enough to believe that mutation would not happen. I just didn't know how long it would take and to what extent it would evade protection.