[nate_meurer]

> The claim by the experts was that the vaccines were 95% effective at stopping the spread.

No, vaccines are not expected to prevent infection or spread, and almost none do. For example, flu vaccines don't keep you from from getting infected, and the virus still spreads successfully even when vaccination rates are high. What the flu shot does is (hopefully) cause you to have less severe symptoms.

Vaccines are designed and tested to prevent disease in spite of infection. This is a universally understood principle in the field of immunology, regardless of the CDC's confusing messaging.

The current evidence indicates that the vaccines are doing a good job of preventing hospitalizations due to covid.

[read_if_gay_]

If that is such an universally understood principle then a lot of people are badly misinformed. I can’t count how often I hear “if everybody just took the vaccine the virus would be gone within insert timespan” even in academic circles.

[actually_a_dog]

That's just a matter of conflating "the virus" with "the disease." People do this all the time. Usually it doesn't matter. In this case, it does.

[nate_meurer]

> if everybody just took the vaccine the virus would be gone within insert timespan

No, the expectation is that a successful vaccination campaign will end the pandemic, by making the burden on healthcare systems manageable. Nobody serious thinks we can eradicate the virus like we did with smallpox. It will always be with us, causing infection.

This is how all vaccines work, with the exception of HPV and possibly measles. Vaccines are not expected to provide sterilizing immunity, and they don't need to as long as they prevent serious disease due to the infection.

Within the field of immunology this is common knowledge, and I wish the CDC would message it more clearly.