Where does new data leave the idea of vaccine mandates and passports?

[Squleamish]

Usual disclaimers:

1. I am not an "anti-vaxxer" (far from it).

2. Vaccination is clearly beneficial for individuals to prevent severe illness and hospitalisation.

However...

It's increasingly clear that the jabs do little for transmission, despite early promises (and aggressive pressures on the basis of "social good").
Amongst other similar info:

• Pfizer's latest data shows just 20% reduction after 6 months, and reduction in efficacy against infection is clear after 3 months.
• PHE data has shown again that, per 100,000, the proportion of people infected with covid is (if anything), in most age groups, actually greater in vaccinated than unvaccinated groups.
• We've known for some time that viral loads are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated, once people are infected.

Clearly it's complicated. Some have argued that the shorter duration of infection for vaccinated should mean lower transmission risk. Others have argued that less severe infections in vaccinated might mean greater risk of transmission (e.g., because people don't get tested). But overall, all this together indicates that (consistent with the the high rates in highly vaccinated nations) any effects of vaccination on transmission are minimal.

So WHY are we judging the unvaxxed, and mandating vaccination for health care workers. WHY are so many places (Canada, Australia, Lithuania...) making life so difficult for people who haven't been jabbed. Why all the coercion? How can this be medical, rather than political?

Here's a helpful link to a previous thread about the now accepted to be a bit skewed data mentioned in the OP. The thread was started by ....oh.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4345496-So-the-latest-Public-Health-England-data-show?pg=1

@Squleamish You need to send your questions in to Radio 4's 'More or Less' - Tim Harford. He's on twitter too, and there is a podcast on BBC Sounds - one specific for the Covid vaccine stats.