Some fact-checking:
In other words the general consensus given to the public was the vaccine provided nearly complete immunity and once vaccinated, people could return to a "normal" life.
This turned out to be untrue.
The recent delta surge was not due to ineffective vaccines, but due to vaccine hesitancy. It was the latter unvaccinated population which accounted for the vast majority of hospitalizations, leading to reinstated mitigation necessities.
Then it was revealed that vaccinated people could still contract the virus - in some cases in even higher viral loads than unvaccinated people and that they could spread those loads to others. So they could still carry the virus, still be contagious and be an even greater potential spreader than the unvaccinated.
This is not true. First, the incidence of breakthrough infections for the vaccinated are far lower than covid infections in the unvaccinated. In breakthrough cases,
studies have shown there to be "no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated people" infected with delta.
I'm not trying to throw doubt on the vaccine, just explaining the thought process behind WHY some people are still hesitant about getting the vaccine. And, I have to admit, there is some logic to it.
There's not much logic here. The fact that the vaccine is less than 100% effective, and that its effectiveness wanes over time, is hardly a comfortable excuse to not be vaccinated. It means that we need
more vaccination, perhaps more often. It's the opposite of the logic that you're suggesting here.
This mandate is destroying the lives of people, many of whom have had & recovered from the virus and thus have natural immunity
"Natural immunity" is a canard. The antibody immunity from a covid infection also wanes over time, at approximately the same rate as immunity from the vaccines.
Covid reinfections are likely within months of an initial infection, and to
demonstrate, "the rate of repeat cases is double the rate of breakthrough infections". The notion that this "natural immunity" from a covid infection provides greater protection than the vaccines has been thoroughly debunked.
Already the mandates have created division, setting one group against another
This division was "created" when the wearing of masks was politicized in the spring of 2020. The mandates wouldn't have been necessary if there wasn't already a deep-heeled resistence to mitigation measures to begin with.
I have to go back to what Fauci said early on before he started flip-flopping about masks: at most, masks may stop droplets, otherwise they do little to stop viral spread.
Another thing Fauci said early on was that since masks did little to mitigate viral spread they had become something more for show to let others know you taking the virus seriously (some might call this "virtue signaling" or "theater").
Of course he later contradicted or added to some of these statements to maintain his course along the prevailing political winds.
Fauci has frequently been misquoted and misattributed so it's best to be clear about what he actually said. When his emails were released earlier this year, there was a claim that he had admitted that masks were not effective.
That's not true. For
the record, masks are indeed
effective. What Fauci said was the same thing that people have been saying, but which anti-maskers continue to fail to understand. Masks are only minimally effective in protecting the wearer (about 50-60%, which is still better than nothing). How masks are truly effective in preventing viral spread is that they stop the wearer's individual breath-droplets from becoming airborne, which is a much more effective mitigation than protecting from already airborne breath-droplets. This is why mask-effectiveness requires cooperation. This is what Fauci explained in his email, and what was explained to those who tried to use his email as a weapon against him and fellow mask-wearers. The masks prevent the droplets from getting in the air, not visa versa. Fauci has been consistent in recommending universal mask-wearing as soon as he learned that these droplets can hang in the air for up to 3 hours at a time. It's only been controversial for those who want to make it into a controversy.