It wasn’t known if it would or not. But the fact that it massively reduces risk to the virus is a giant win. What’s wrong with that?

This recent firestorm about whether or not the vaccine was studied prior to release to measure its effectiveness at transmission seems like it stemmed from a single comment in the European Union's inquiry.

Has it been determined more substantially that Pfizer and Moderna did not study transmission while the vaccines were in development?

I would think that couldn’t occur in the beginning. Most clinical trials are simply about safety and effectiveness for the individual. Transmission is a very difficult thing to study, especially in a clinical trial, and time was of the essence. I doubt it was a goal post for anyone, and we just needed something to stem risk of hospitalization and death. Vaccines did provide exactly that and still do.

I substantially agree with you but would contend that effectiveness should have included transmissibility. If it is the case that it was not studied, it does seem that some of the messaging and assumptions about vaccine mandates and/or passports is questionable. I maintain, however, a lot of skepticism that transmissibility wasn't studied initially based on this one quote about "moving at the speed of science."

>I doubt it was a goal post for anyone

Except of course, the mandates. The main argument for healthy people to get it was to save granny. Except they never bothered to study transmission, which means they lied to get the mandates in place. It's not that they "just didn't know". It's that they knew they were lying when they said mandates were needed to stop transmission.

So now that creates a huge problem moving forward. Who but the most subservient will ever believe anything they say now?

> these so-called “vaccines” don’t stop transmission like the vaccines you’re thinking about

Like the inactivated poliovirus [1]? Sterilising vaccines [2] haven’t been a priority because the subpopulation that enjoys getting measles was historically small.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine

[2] https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/vaccine-types

From the article you linked:

> OPV produces excellent immunity in the intestine, the primary site of wild poliovirus entry, which helps prevent infection with wild virus in areas where the virus is endemic.

It seems like the polio vaccine actually prevents infection which is not the case for the COVID “vaccine” which is purely therapeutical.

The vaccine isn’t therapeutic, it just doesn’t confer total immunity like some vaccines, mostly because COVID mutates frequently. Are you thinking of the monoclonal antibody treatment?

> seems like the polio vaccine actually prevents infection

OPV (“o” as in oral) sterilises. IPV (“i” as in inactivated) doesn’t. IPV doesn’t spread vaccine-derived poliovirus, so it’s the more widely-used one. (It comes down to whether the virus is neutralised in the gut or the blood.)

The polio case in Brooklyn was an unvaccinated man getting a vaccine-derived infection from the sterilising OPV [1][2].

[1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/1010...

[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12931339/