So which is it:

(1) a reduction in symptoms will assist managing the virus as most spread is associated with symptoms.

In which case: what was / is the point of lockdowns / restrictions over and above self-isolation of those with symptoms?

Or:

(2) a reduction in symptoms will not assist managing the virus, as asymptomatic spead is a major factor.

If so, as described above, whilst welcoming the extra protection afforded to the vulnerable, it's illogical to view vaccines as a pre-requisite to get life back to normal.

The conclusion to this is that once vulnerable groups have (voluntarily) been vaccinated, all restrictions to society must end.

This is essential to cease the enormous ongoing collateral public health and economic harms being done to society.

By the way, if your answer to this is "Moonshot", have you thought about exactly when that would end, and at what cost?

Do people really think it would be worth it, having vaccinated the vulnerable?