[ralph84]

> I don't recall transmission ever being promised, only a substantial lower chance of severe infection and death

No, that was the spin after it became clear they didn’t prevent infection or transmission. When they were given EUA they were sold as 95% effective at preventing covid[0], and there are plenty of clips of officials including the president of the US saying if you get vaccinated you won’t get or spread covid. Nothing about reducing symptoms. Heck, read the prescribing info[1]. It still says the indication is to prevent covid, not reduce symptoms.

[0] https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta...

[1] https://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=15623&forma...

[Izkata]

No, "prevent covid" means people didn't get sick, which is defined by symptoms. That press release isn't conflating SARS-CoV-2 (the virus) with COVID-19 (the disease); it says nothing about stopping infection/transmission.

That outcome could have been reached by either preventing infection or just reducing symptoms, and they made no attempt to claim which it was because they didn't test for it.

[haswell]

> 95% effective at preventing covid [sic]

SARS-CoV-2 and COVID are not the same thing. All of the main media outlets reporting on this were pretty clear that 95% was prevention of severe symptoms and death.

> It still says the indication is to prevent covid, not reduce symptoms

Again, we need to focus on SARS-CoV-2 vs. COVID here. Getting "COVID" implies you A) were exposed to the virus and it entered your body and B) it is causing symptoms. Preventing COVID is not synonymous with preventing infection by SARS-CoV-2.

I think this has been a particularly confusing point for most because the traditional battery of vaccines we all get as kids generally do prevent the actual disease, and that has led to much misinterpretation as far as I can tell.