Currently many staff shortages are being made much worse by public health policy, not Covid19 itself, in that otherwise healthy staff being forced to stay away from work to comply with quarantine requirements.
These requirements are now being relaxed[0], which is a good thing, but at some point the requirements need to go back to how the world worked before Covid which is approximately "if you're sick, please stay at home; if you're healthy, please come to work".
[0] CDC Updates and Shortens Recommended Isolation and Quarantine Period for General Population https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s1227-isolation-quar...
The scare quotes around "fully" are unnecessary. Two doses is enough to drive down hospitalization risk to flu levels. Boosters aren't necessary from a public health perspective because boosting the already vaccinated has a miniscule effect on total hospitalizations. (Sure, if you want them to reduce your own risk, that's fine because they have been approved. If you want them to reduce disruptions in your workplace, that is also fine. Just don't expect to materially impact health system availability.) Vaccinating the unvaccinated has a much larger effect. Alternatively, Omicron seems like it will reach them before mandates take effect or Paxlovid supply is ready, with worse outcomes on the health system.
If you look at the data, it appears that vaccinating the young and healthy has "a miniscule effect on total hospitalizations", too.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that claim. There are an awful lot of unvaccinated young people in the USA.
"13.2 million of US children and adolescents ages 12- 17 are fully vaccinated. [this] represent[s] 53% of 12-17 year-olds"[0] (as of 5 Jan 2022)
also
"Child vaccination rates vary widely across states. In 10 states, at least three-quarters of children (age 12-17) have received at least 1 dose, and in 16 states, fewer than 50% have received 1 dose."
[0] https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
You then said "there are few young and healthy in parts of country where vaccination rates are low".
I'm still not understanding that statement. Across the globe - and across the USA - there are loads of unvaccinated young people, and (happily) most of them are healthy, and (happily) the data show that young healthy people are at very low risk from Covid19 even without vaccination.
What do mandates have to do with any of that?
Do you understand now? The entire point of this thread is that vaccine mandates will allow society to open up, which is not yet possible due to health system constraints, nor was it possible earlier. Your doctor quote is nonsensical in that it doesn't say anything about when society can open up. Today? When the pandemic first started? Obviously not — only when immunity is high enough or effective treatment is readily available.
From that same Dr. Pollard:
“When we do open, there will be a period with a bump in infections, which is why winter is probably not the best time. But that’s a decision for the policy makers, not the scientists.
“Our approach has to switch, to rely on the vaccines and the boosters. The greatest risk is still the unvaccinated.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/omicron-wave-pandemic-loc...
I think that claim remains to be substantiated, to put it mildly.
1. Vaccine mandates increase vaccination rates.
2. Increased vaccination rates mean the health system won't be overwhelmed, allowing society to open up.
The doctor you yourself cited agrees with step 2, as do most of the governments in the world that are managing their countries' transitions to endemicity. There are multiple examples showing that step 1 is correct.