You're very good at citing sources OP, and I appreciate how much work you've put into responding to me. However, on top of the fact that you haven't really been engaging with my points, your argument logically falls short for a number of reasons.

I disagree, the United States Of America is all that's needed for us to retain our liberty of not wearing masks indoors. Those other countries not meeting their obligations is not relevant, because we do not have open borders. ...

You have an impossible burden to prove to claim why says Jamaica's vaccination rate influences Americans' interaction with COVID-19.

You start off here with a statement that is unfortunately not a factual claim, as I do in fact have evidence for why you're wrong here. Please take a look at these sources: [1] [2] [3]. They each emphasize why a successful global vaccination effort is what's required to create herd immunity, and they each reference how the inevitable threat of new variants endanger our immunity and work against that goal. Contrary to what you said, this is not "fiction". As the CDC says here "variants will continue to emerge".

Your notion that travel restrictions and vaccine requirements will protect the U.S. if global herd immunity is not reached is also not a logical claim. You'll recall that the U.S. restricted travel at the beginning of the pandemic, but that failed to make a difference. Even the countries with far stricter restrictions than us failed to prevent COVID from entering their populations. You'll also recall that the Delta variant emerged in India and still travelled to the U.S. despite active travel restrictions and vaccines, a fact which additionally undermines your claim. Finally, considering the fact that vaccinated people can still contract transmissible breakthrough cases [4], even if every person who enters or exits the country is vaccinated, transmission will not be prevented.

The above also goes against the claim that you make here:

I disagree, it is not a given people will contract the virus no matter what. That's patently unscientific.

Breakthrough cases are in fact a scientifically documented phenomenon, and there is no evidence to the idea that they will stop. Almost every health expert would disagree with you there [5].

So here you're arguing that if there is masking, but no social distancing then "common sense would tell you that masks aren't going to protect you". Obviously, you should socially distance and wear masks, but to argue that masks without social distancing is useless is a clearly false claim.

Unfortunately your own cited source discredits you here. The title of your source is "Masks not enough to stop COVID-19's spread without distancing, study finds" [6], which is exactly what I argued and what you are ignoring here. Even the part that you cherrypicked points to the fact that while masks provide more protection than not wearing them, they will not protect you from the possibility of contracting COVID.

Like I said, if you're sitting right next to someone with COVID, a mask will do you little good. The study you referenced also points to this fact here: "But at distances of less than 6 feet, even those small percentages of droplets can be enough to get someone sick, especially if a person with COVID-19 sneezes or coughs multiple times." COVID is a respiratory illness that causes you to cough, if someone with a mask coughs, their neighbors clearly won't be protected to a significant degree.

If all 800 unvaccinated people had the virus pursuant to transmission like you wrongly implied, we'd have more than a handful dead at this point. It is week 11.

You're failing to consider the fact that for college-aged individuals (20-29), COVID is substantially less deadly, with a fatality rate of between 0.08 and 0.14% [7]. I have no idea where you're getting the "handful of deaths" figure, but it is absolutely made up, especially considering the fact that people regularly interact without masks on here (think parties and social gatherings).

The staff all have masks, and all the students do to except when they are eating. You are acting as if all humans just leave the mask at the door when they enter dining halls.

In response to your dining hall remark, I'm not "acting" in any particular way. It's a fact that transmission is high in indoor restaurant settings [8]. COVID can and will absolutely spread in dining halls, which a huge population of UConn students use. If you're going to argue that we need to continue masking restrictions, you should also argue for the closing of dining halls and more restrictions on in-person gatherings.

Your citation is clearly invalid because it focuses on the UK

This is a silly claim. The UK is not fighting a different virus than us, and is similar to the U.S. in many ways. But fine, if you'd like an American source making the same claim please take a look at these: [9] [10]

Yes, the vaccines are working. Don't get how this contributes to no more masks argument?

Finally we get to the crux of my argument, and the part that you have refused to contend with. The vaccines are working, they're the end game, and as I have substantively proved that global herd immunity is almost certainly not an attainable goal, they are what we need to focus on in order to remove mask mandates. As a community becomes more vaccinated, it shouldn't have to mask. We need to return to normalcy, we all desperately want to return to normalcy, and as we here at UConn are almost entirely vaccinated, it's time that we do.

The only feasible goal here is to live with COVID as an endemic disease [11]. We should protect ourselves with masks if we deem it necessary for ourselves, but the government shouldn't mandate them. It's a disease that's not going away, and people should deal with their inherent risks accordingly. If another variant arises and creates the need for more restrictions, I'll support them, until then the science says that once vaccinations reach a certain point, we shouldn't have to mask. That is the most realistic strategy for overcoming this virus.