Is it possible that it gets fewer dice rolls but the "dice are loaded" by the fact that a vaccinated but contagious case is likelier to spread only selected mutations? Isn't that the concept of immune escape[1]?
This is why I and others have opposed the concept of mass vaccination for an endemic highly-spreading respiratory virus. It simply doesn't make sense unless you can develop a vaccine comparable to natural immunity (both in magnitude of immune response but also robustness/resiliency to mutations; over the long-term the current vaccines offer neither).
SARS-2's risk is incredibly well bounded; we have a great idea of who is truly vulnerable and who would have to get struck by lightning 8 times in a row to be seriously harmed. We should have recognized that fact from the beginning; but recognizing that fact runs counter to the narrative required to scare the whole population enough to accept lockdowns/etc.
I'm just pointing out how effective the vaccines would have to be for this strategy to make sense (and that's ignoring the whole matter of people that refuse to get vaccinated against COVID, like me).
Simply put the whole strategy doesn't make sense on utilitarian grounds. I don't need to invoke any libertarian principles to argue against why this is so insane.
Side tangent: Unfortunately many who are on my side of the fence as far as skepticism of mass vaccination, believe equally absurd things like the notion that we can eradicate SARS-2 by having the whole world all take ivermectin at the same time. This idea was non-ironically advocated for by Bret Weinstein...