I've heard it repeated here that the vaccines were touted as "preventing infection" or "stopping the spread." While that might have been true in some media circles, it was never true in terms of what the clinical trials were even testing, nor is it true that the FDA or CDC were saying that all along.
If you believe otherwise, read on; I hope to persuade you. Let's take a look at what the actual clinical trials say.
Phase 3 Trials
Johnson and Johnson
Johnson and Johnson Clinical Trial. Results statement:
In the per-protocol at-risk population, 468 centrally confirmed cases of symptomatic Covid-19 with an onset at least 14 days after administration were observed, of which 464 were moderate to severe–critical (116 cases in the vaccine group vs. 348 in the placebo group), which indicated vaccine efficacy of 66.9% (adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI], 59.0 to 73.4) (Table 2).
Emphasis mine. Further reading in the discussion section of the report:
The effect on the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by the vaccine suggests that it might be useful in reducing community-wide transmission.
"Might be useful" is not a claim that it definitely prevents transmission. Further:
The analysis of vaccine efficacy against asymptomatic infection included all the participants with a newly positive N-immunoassay result at day 71 (i.e., those who had been seronegative or had no result available at day 29 and who were seropositive at day 71). Only 2650 participants had an N-immunoassay result available at day 71, and therefore only a preliminary analysis could be performed.
Moderna
Phase 3 Clinical Trial:
The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group). More than 96% of participants received both injections, and 2.2% had evidence (serologic, virologic, or both) of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline. Symptomatic Covid-19 illness was confirmed in 185 participants in the placebo group (56.5 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.7 to 65.3) and in 11 participants in the mRNA-1273 group (3.3 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.0); vaccine efficacy was 94.1% (95% CI, 89.3 to 96.8%; P<0.001).
...
In addition, although our trial showed that mRNA-1273 reduces the incidence of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, the data were not sufficient to assess asymptomatic infection, although our results from a preliminary exploratory analysis suggest that some degree of prevention may be afforded after the first dose. Evaluation of the incidence of asymptomatic or subclinical infection and viral shedding after infection are under way, to assess whether vaccination affects infectiousness.
It's probably worth noting that they're defining SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 as different things. SARS-CoV-2 is the virus; COVID-19 is the disease. By that definition, you could have the virus in your system, but unless you were symptomatic, you didn't have the COVID-19 disease.
The FDA/CDC and WHO were not consistent in that terminology, because China was insisting that the virus itself be called COVID-19 to avoid the word "Asia" in SARS: South Asia Respiratory Syndrome. But anyway.
Pfizer
Again, New England Journal of Medicine Phase 3 Outcome:
Confirmed Covid-19 was defined according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria as the presence of at least one of the following symptoms: fever, new or increased cough, new or increased shortness of breath, chills, new or increased muscle pain, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, diarrhea, or vomiting, combined with a respiratory specimen obtained during the symptomatic period or within 4 days before or after it that was positive for SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid amplification–based testing, either at the central laboratory or at a local testing facility (using a protocol-defined acceptable test).
...
These data do not address whether vaccination prevents asymptomatic infection; a serologic end point that can detect a history of infection regardless of whether symptoms were present (SARS-CoV-2 N-binding antibody) will be reported later.
Media and CDC, early 2021
Let's move along to how it was covered in the media and what the CDC said. Early on, they were careful to not insinuate that vaccination prevented infection:
January, NPR: "Can I spread the virus to others even if I'm fully vaccinated? This is an important question, but scientists studying the shots' effectiveness don't have an answer yet."
February, Smithsonian: "while the two currently approved Covid-19 vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna are more than 90 percent effective at preventing the development of serious illness, scientists don’t know whether someone who has been vaccinated can carry the live virus and spread it to others."
Evolving Data
Over time, however, new studies were published and the recommendations changed with them:
In February, months after the vaccines were being distributed, the CDC said people who were exposed and vaccinated didn't need to quarantine.
By March, Nature published a study suggesting vaccinated people have viral loads low enough to make transmission unlikely. This was based on data from Israel and of people likely infected with either ancestral or alpha strains.
And then as of course you know, the CDC said we didn't need to wear masks anymore because vaccinated people weren't major vectors for transmission.
Why does all this matter?
It matters because truth matters. It's simply not true that the vaccines were promised as tools to prevent transmission. Their clinical trials, which were against the ancestral strain out of Wuhan, were specifically testing for symptomatic infection -- not transmission, not asymptomatic infection, not ending the pandemic.
The CDC has been incredibly lazy with its mask "science," even pushing demonstrably flawed studies to force children to wear masks. We should push back against bad science when we see it.
But as a community, I would say we lose credibility if we suggest things that simply aren't true, such as the claim that Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson and Johnson claimed their vaccines were sterilizing. They made no such claim, nor did the FDA.
The CDC believed some studies, with good reason, suggesting that with the ancestral and alpha variants, the vaccines reduced transmission greatly. That was also the correct thing to do: they updated their guidance based on evolving science.
We can persuasively argue against heavy-handed draconian regulations and risk-averse government busybodies without misrepresenting what drug companies and the FDA said about the vaccines. It would have been great if the vaccines did prevent transmission. For a while, that hope seemed likely, but it's gone now. All the more reason not to mandate vaccines -- they will not give us herd immunity.
