By defining "infection" so broadly it loses all meaning, some officials are trying lump to the covid vaccines (which are no longer very good at preventing contagious infections) with vaccines that prevent contagious infection for decades. Obviously, the effectiveness of vaccines is nuanced and their effectiveness at preventing contagious spread is a spectrum--not a binary.
Public health officials should just be straight with us. The vaccines aren't as good as some of the vaccines we all get--like measles--but they do provide a great deal of protection. It's still basically a miracle that we got the protection we did in about a year after the virus appeared. It's a huge success.
At 95%+ immunised outbreaks ought not occur because herd immunity, even for the remaining unvaccinated, whereas at the lower levels, outbreaks will likely happen.
Is that not right?
If you have the measles vaccine and you get exposed to measles, measles will be in your body for a short time in low quantities, but your immune system will quickly destroy it. That means you are unlikely to pass it on or develop symptoms.
But is that different then to vaccines against bacterial diseases? If some bacteria enter my body, surely they don’t magically disappear either, maybe split a few times but eventually die off.
Herd immunity is effectively a function of how infections something is. 1 case leading to 2 cases on average means you need to cut transmission in 50%. 1 case leading to 10 cases and you need to block 90% of new cases.
Critically this means vaccinated people can still be infectious as long as they infect less than 1 person on average you can reach herd immunity.
I am reminded of the recent twitter thread posted here by Dan Luu about how communicating nuance at scale is impossible.