Apparently none of them, he was a full-on believer of the conspiracies according to the stepson.
Well the people who are actually selling it - ie Pfizer and AZ - have been quite careful to be clear about the limitations. The trouble is that it's complicated and the British media don't really do nuance - the number depends on whether you're talking about infection, symptoms, severe symptoms or death, and on which variant and vaccine you're talking about. So 2 jabs give 90-95% protection against the pre-omicron variants putting you in hospital, 98.8% with a booster. So that's like playing Russian roulette with 1 or 2 bullets rather than 20. We don't know yet whether that will continue with omicron - best guess is that it will be close but probably not
quite as good ,maybe 90%??
You also have to remember that even without a vaccination, about a third of people get infected but don't show symptoms. Things get much more variable when it comes to less severe symptoms, it gets very dependent on the exact combination of variant and vaccine and eg how long it is since you got jabbed.
The latest UKHSA report gives a good overview - they say against delta you're looking at 2 jabs of Pfizer giving you 65-95% protection against symptoms from delta, 2 jabs of AZ is more like 50-60%. A booster of Pfizer improves that to ~94% for both Pfizer and AZ.
They're 65-80% effective in preventing you getting infected, and around 50% effective in preventing you transmitting to people around you (more so against alpha, less so delta).
However, the vaccines - particular unboosted - work less well against omicron. Early data suggests that 2 doses of Pfizer only cut your risk of symptoms from omicron by 40%, and AZ may do almost nothing to stop symptoms (although there are some questions about that number), whereas a booster makes a dramatic difference, it increases effectiveness against symptoms back up to 70-75%. So it's really worthwhile getting your booster.
There's lot of data in that UKHSA report, well worth a read.
Easy to say in hindsight but I don't think you can be too hard on them. They'd jabbed most of the over 70s by mid March, which means with 12 weeks to 2nd jab and 6 months to booster the over 70s should mostly have been boosted by now anyway. The mad rush is really in the wake of the data that only emerged in the last week or two that omicron was really hitting the effectiveness of 2 AZ in particular, and boosting really helped against omicron. It's right to then prioritise boosting, but I don't think you can be too critical of not doing so before then, there were reasons for leaving a 6-month spacing.
The two things I would be critical of in the jab programme were
1) Not creating a priority group of high-risk people whose job involves singing/talking loudly in front of a group of people - teachers, singers, vicars, even MPs(!) - and jabbing them ahead of other under 50s. It seems that was primarily a database issue.
2) Reducing the 2nd-jab spacing in June, rather than cracking on and using the capacity to 1st-jab teenagers so that at the very least they were all (jab+2 weeks) before September, and ideally were given enough time that 2nd jabbing before September could have been an option. We know that the start of the academic year is a huge mixing pot of infection, and should have done more to anticipate it and reduce it.
