Why wouldn't the correlation show up sooner?

I'm not looking to get into any COVID arguments and don't have time for further posts after this one. Conventional expert wisdom as recently as June was that 50% vaccination would stop spikes. That turned out to be wrong, whatever the reason. If the reason is that the infectivity of Delta wasn't appreciated, that's fine. Still means there is a lot of uncertainty and our predictions are uncertain.

I don't understand the claim that a correlation between vaccination and spread only shows up at 95%. There should be a correlation well before then. Some correlation at 50%, greater correlation at 75%, and so on.

Vermont has 90%+ of 12+ at least partially vaccinated and a record case count. Higher case counts than last year with no vaccination. It is certainly not my field, but per the study I linked, it seems as though there was no particular correlation found across many different places. Vermont isn't showing a slow of spread at 90%+, but will at 95%? Hard for me to see how that would be the case.

I'm glad Vermont and New England haven't had overwhelmed hospitals or the like. That's great.

I wish that vaccinations had halted spread. It would have been great if say a 50% vaccination rate pretty much muted cases. That was conventional wisdom as I understood it (at least so far as conventional wisdom is represented by Fauci). I'm just saying it hasn't played out as far as I am aware. If it hasn't started to play out at 50, 60, etc. percentages at any location, I'm not sure why it would play out at higher percentages.

I'm only talking cases and spread. There are other different and important metrics. More important metrics if we are talking about impact.

As stated above, I've got to go, so excuse me if I don't respond. I don't have anything in particular further to say anyway.