I feel like you've posted evidence that vaccines are effective at reducing spread (in addition, of course, to being extremely effective at reducing deaths).

The CDC prison study says "The attack rate was higher among unvaccinated versus fully vaccinated persons (39 of 42, 93% versus 129 of 185, 70%; p = 0.002)."

The Eurosurveillance article you posted says "The calculated attack rate among all exposed patients and staff was 10.6% (16/151) for staff and 23.7% (23/97) for patients, in a population with 96.2% vaccination rate (238 vaccinated/248 exposed individuals)." Do you think that indicates that vaccines don't reduce spread? What do you think the attack rate would be in an unvaccinated population?

The European Journal of Epidemiology article isn't actually trying to look at vaccine effectiveness in reducing spread. It has some interesting information, but that's not what it's about.

So the prison study is of tightly packed inmates and shows a high attack rate and bears on infectivity during an oubreak. There is literally nothing in there on onwards transmission from the vaccinated or in contact tracing because it was most likely quite impossible to do.

That study cannot be used to disprove the idea that the unvaccinated inmates all gave the virus to the vaccinated ones. That is almost certainly wrong and there should have been some onwards transmission from the vaccinated, but that sentence is quite literally correct. The study says nothing about it.

Meanwhile I've posted elsewhere:

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on Alpha & Delta variant transmission

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260v...

That study is real world contact tracing.

From my local area: https://www1.racgp.org.au/newsgp/clinical/unvaccinated-patie...

I don't dispute that the vaccines may be effective in reducing hospitalizations & deaths from Covid but that's a separate question from whether and how much they reduce transmission.

I know your entry to the conversation was about transmission, but the broader context here seems to be about hospital staffing, which would make hospitalisation vs cases the more useful question.

Not sure I understand your point? Are you saying that the capacity gains from preventing the marginal addition to ICU occupancy of unvaccinated nurses who become sick and need hospitalization will outweigh the capacity impacts of firing them all?

No- it's about whether a 4% reduction (or 40%, or whatever marginal rate) in transmission is cause for termination, when we know that "compliant” employees, in a near 100% vaccinated population will still transmit the virus.

More so if the argument is that the hospital patient population is especially vulnerable.

We don't even know if the likelihood of transmission is reduced enough to affect over number of transmissions.

The vaccinated and unvaccinated are tested at very different rates, this is comparing apples and oranges.