"(Also, that doesn't require everyone vaccinated, just a high percentage)"
Yes, and that high percentage of vaccinated people was achieved. But ... Polio is still back. So how would be your plan to get everyone not vulnerable with the cheap (and dangerous) vaccine?
You keep trying to turn things into binary factors: it either is a high percent or it isn't, 100% protection or bust. That's not how this works.
The percentage of people who need to be vaccinated is based on many factors, including the degree of protection the vaccine provides. There's no one number, it varies based on the totality of the circumstances. One valid interpretation of the setbacks we've encountered in eradicating polio is that number needs to be a bit higher.
"You keep trying to turn things into binary factors"
I am citing the researchers, about the significant problem that prevented eradication of Polio. None of them mentioned antivaxxers as the main reason(or any reason at all), only people here in this thread did, with the original comment implying it was only because of antivaxxers. Which is just not true here.
"One valid interpretation of the setbacks we've encountered in eradicating polio is that number needs to be a bit higher."
So I am not a virologist, but if you think your simple solution and intepretation is a valid one, then it should not be hard, to find an actual virologists who states the same.
And if you cannot, maybe accknowledge, that the problem is a bit more complex. If vaccine refusers would have significantly prevented the rollout of the vaccine to reach significant numbers, it would have been mentioned as a reason. But it wasn't. The campaign alltogether was still likely a huge success, but just not in its goal to eradicate polio.
You've already been provided with all the breadcrumbs required to understand the key concepts. Your failure to engage with this information and follow the trail does not make you a "good skeptic", it makes you obstinate.
Well, I never asked for your breadcumbs, but for a link where an actual virologist is saying anti vaxx people are the problem why polio wasn't eradicated, which is what this thread was about. The article is not saying anything about it and neither is any other literature about it, I have read so far. (not that I have read much about it, but a bit)
And your failure to provide such a link and your fall back to "I provided you with all the breadcrumbs and the rest is up to you" reminds me actually very much of discussions with anti vaxx people I had, you seem to misstake me for. Lots of talk. But nothing solid to back things up. At least nothing, I debated.
So sure, higher vaccination rates might help. I did not debate that. But if it would be as simple as that, then there wouldn't be a problem. Only if the required numbers could not be reached because of anti vaxxers - then you would have an point - but again - I am not aware of an actual virologists making that point in this specific instance.
So you claim you are an biochemist? Great, but I hope you know, that doesn't make you an virologist. Because I am also not an IT security expert, because I studied IT.
I think I have a vague understanding about both (virology and IT security). Enough to know, that both is freakingly complicated and in both sectors there is lots and lots of snake oil and self declared gurus who claim they have the solution.
I rather stick with the experts with some reputation.
One other thing to consider is even if its eradicated - it originally arose from pre-Polio building blocks of some sort, how do you prevent it from re-occurring 'from scratch'?
Yes, and that high percentage of vaccinated people was achieved. But ... Polio is still back. So how would be your plan to get everyone not vulnerable with the cheap (and dangerous) vaccine?
(the vaccine does not give 100% protection btw.)