A thought experiment:
If there are really large numbers of breakthrough cases out there -- and I know of six, myself -- then getting the vaccine did not really prevent them from getting the virus, for more than 3-4 months.
And if they got the virus, then I've got to believe they could transmit the virus to others, although I'm sure someone will try to prove that they are "less contagious," somehow. [I don't believe there have been significant studies of that, since the vaccine makers have been too busy assuring us that breakthrough cases were exceedingly rare.]
So, does the imperative that everyone should get the vaccine to protect others, really hold water, if it's not protecting against transmission??
Luckily, none of my friends are in the hospital; the vaccine does seem to be working at minimizing the effects of the virus, as far as they can tell for now. That is, in fact, what the vaccines were evaluated for. The "95% efficacy" was at keeping study participants from becoming seriously ill . . . they were not tested frequently to find out if they had gotten an asymptomatic case of the virus, and of course, when the studies were done it was not being tested against the Delta variant.
But is avoiding hospitalization really about protecting your fellow citizens, or is that really about protecting yourself [which would, of course, be a more personal decision]?
Whatever the case, I do know health care workers who have been putting their own lives on the line for 18 months now to save our asses, and I don't think we should start turning the blame cannons on them, of all people.