Weren't those other vaccines more effective also because they were mandated? I mean if only 50 to 60% of the population took a polio vaccine would it have been eradicated?
Also isn't it difficult to do an apples to apples comparison because not all viruses are equally contagious? I mean if you're willing to give other treatments the benefit of the doubt and cite studies why are you so against the vaccines which, while not perfect, are shown to be very effective? A vaccine and, if it fails and you have a breakthrough infection, subsequent treatment of infection aren't mutually exclusive.
Another thing about Polio that few people seem to know, was that it was once called a 'rich man's disease.' Polio was endemic in society. 'Poor' people were probably exposed to it while they were young, and most children who caught it were asymptomatic and just got through it (although, of course, there were still kids in Iron Lungs, breathing for them).
People who were 'privileged' and didn't live with the rabble didn't get exposed to Polio. When they DID finally get it, as adults, it did a lot more damage to their bodies.
FDR, perhaps a poster boy for polio, didn't get Polio until he was an adult, and lost the use of his legs.
I remember the Nationwide programs to vaccinate for Polio - both the Sabin and the Salk vaccines. One was a shot in the arm, the other was vaccine on a sugar cube. I had both.
A vaccine is only as effective as the percentage of the population taking it. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines work differently from the J&J. The vaccines don't guarantee that a person who has been vaccinated WON'T get Covid - only that, if they do, the likelihood that they need hospitalization or die from it is drastically reduced.
My wife and I will probably get the Pfizer booster, when it's time to take it.