The study it points to shows that vaccination reduces spread by 40%. It’s a small study with n’s of <40 people, but 40% is a significant reduction in transmission.
Beyond that it tries to somehow ignore the massive benefits in reducing the risk of hospitalization (therefore ignores the fact that even when the vaccinated spread the virus, they are likely to in lower intensity), by claiming that a bad flu year has 50-70k hospitalized Americans. Which is true, and just goes to show how much worse the impact of COVID is on hospitalization when the hospitalization winter peaks have been 140k and 160k, more than double the worst flu season in the US. And no, 12% of the staff not being available (largely because they are burnt out because of COVID) is not even a part of the reason that hospitalization is so much of a problem when hospitalization is 100% greater than the worst flu year.
2) The article does not provide strong studies showing the benefits of reinfections. Other than a letter to the editor, the data ends pre-Omicron, but more importantly, covers a period which is well within the 6-9 month period of the last 2 surges where immunity from both vaccines and infection is considered strong. There is research showing that immunity due to infection does, in fact, reduce dramatically after 6-9 months. It may take some time for the effects of Omicron to be isolated, but either way, at best it shows that variants are able to evade immunity by infection.
3) Finally, they don’t actually provide any downsides to the vaccine mandates. And there are no novel civil liberty based defenses one can hide behind because vaccine mandates already exist for many vaccines. At least in the US, courts have ruled in favor of mandatory vaccinations even over religious objections.
Arguably the likes of Jenny McCarthy, who have been anti vaxxers well before COVID-19 existed can take a principled stance against vaccine mandates, but it’s very difficult for others to do so considering they’ve been accepting them for so long with nary a word against them.
Consequently, an argument against a strong vaccine mandate must test on a cost benefit analysis, and it’s hard to argue against the mandate on a cost benefit analysis, and I don’t see how pointing out a bunch of benefits, without showing any costs (to those who don’t have medical exemptions, who presumably would be exempt from any version of a vaccine mandate) leads to a conclusion against mandates.