I read this today, which I think a lot of folks aren't aware of. When people hear "breakthrough infection" they assume they are shedding it to their old parents or whatever, it seems like:
and
In his “Pensées,” Blaise Pascal, the seventeenth-century French philosopher and mathematician, advanced an argument: Every rational person should believe in God. Pascal’s wager, as it’s come to be known, begins with the indisputable supposition that either God exists, or he doesn’t. If you believe in God, and he doesn’t exist, then you’ve lost very little—perhaps a chance at some risqué behavior that’s better avoided anyway. But if you don’t believe in God, and he does exist, you’re damned. Better to believe in God. We might not call this “belief,” exactly—it’s too calculated for that—but it does have a certain logical appeal.
When it comes to breakthrough infections, we are not compelled to believe that they are seriously risky. The data are too inconclusive for that. But we may still choose, rationally, to make a wager. For vaccinated people, the coronavirus threat is massively, undeniably smaller than it was last year; at the same time, we are taking more risks—visiting family, attending weddings, going to church, returning to the office. We have to make decisions about what’s worth it, what isn’t, what we should do now, and what can wait.