The thing I'm thinking is, when you're developing a "leaky" vaccine, at what point does it become known that it is, in fact, leaky? If a pandemic is rolling unchecked, as it was before these were developed, some may say in haste, other may say not fast enough. At what point do you decide its in the best interests to stop a "leaky" vaccine if there are no other options, or should it even be stopped? Ultimately there is no guarantees and there are lots of variables that are farther reaching than some isolated birds, when you're talking about the entire planet. I am not saying I am behind the vaccine or against it, I just am not easily assured of any claims, when they are based on limited or minimal data. I certainly am not the type of person to give any government cart blanche regarding the public's anything. But health is generally a thing that every human, regardless of position, has as a common goal, as noone wants poor decisions made resulting in deaths of anyone that could eventually make its way back to them or their families. Pandemics, thankfully aren't a norm, even now, with regards to the stream of time ratio to qualified pandemics. Not to mention, they government relies heavily in such cases on opinions of the health system, and doctors who for the most part again, have a similar goal in seeking solutions to health risks or dangers. So, not to be ignorant or naive, but rather simply trying to be realistic, with awareness to the possibility of imperfection of person and imperfection of moral fiber, also being a playing factor and unknown but known variable. I think its a little early to even begin developing an accurate opinion myself, but that's just my two cents trying to make sense of all the senseless nonsense.
Edit: Just adding that it didn't leave any feeling of certainty of the articles aim when reading your last comment regarding the "New World Aura", as I have not heard of that, but clearly through the response you were making to, it seems at least somewhat known. What I mean is, what effect on your research and/or decision making regarding opinions as they relate to current Governments, does your belief system have on those opinions? Personally I prefer opinions that are lacking influence from any personal belief system, since that tends to imply a possibility of an agenda or ulterior motive that is coming from a perspective that has no relation to the material as it is somewhat presented with an influential impetus due perspective, rather than fact based and a searching for truth at all costs based on the general wellfare of all.
I aim to hold zero beliefs on any topic - I may have some but when I find them I let them go. This leaves me free to hold only knowledge, emotions and thoughts. The absence of belief allows me to adjust thoughts freely while fully feeling - unhindered by unreasonable attachment. Emotional processing allows the emotions to move freely enough to avoid the emotional equivalent of bias introduced by beliefs.
I am currently reviewing a peer reviewed paper that was just published on the topic of vaccines making (human) people sick - I will post on it when I can.
Vaccines are leaky when they do not prevent transmission. The majority of older vaccines for humans do prevent transmission, but the COVID ones don't. Leaky vaccines give a false sense of security, but more than that, they provide a breeding ground in hosts for more lethal forms of viruses. When rules are being inserted into society to limit the freedom of those who are unvaccinated, even when the vaccinated are just as likely to pass on pathogens as unvaccinated - then we have a major ethical problem (to add to the many that exist just by the action of trying to limit the freedom of someone else based on your own thinking). With unvaccinated people actually being blamed for driving transmission, it is only right to highlight that there are several pathways involved which actually mean that it is the vaccinated who may be driving transmission and that if we are going to be controlling one group more than the other, it might be best to restrict the freedoms of the vaccinated more than the unvaccinated. We don't know the long term outcome from this experiment and we wouldn't usually allow such a situation.