The dodge is that the real experts always admitted the shots wouldn't prevent transmission; it was just the talking heads and media who said it would, and that's where most people get their information. So now, years later when people aren't freaking out and fearing for their jobs, we're supposed to have all known all along what the real scientists behind the scenes were saying.
I was told by family and friends that the shots were 100% safe and effective, and that if I didn't take the shot I wanted grandma to die, because that's what the TV told them; and when I tried to show them quotes from the actual scientists creating the shots that contradicted that, they said it was misinformation.
I'm sorry I can't hear you over the sound of statistical proof that you are wrong!
When did I memorizing names of logical fallacies to toss them out as if they're arguments on their own? When I called your a/b bullshit a false dichotomy? Oh wait I didn't bother because you are a useless waste of space who can't even take their own advice.
Alright, let's see this proof ("statistical" or otherwise) that being vaccinated meant you were "unlikely to transmit".
Keep in mind, this proof has to deal with the fact that 1) a majority of people got vaccinated and 2) a majority of people got infected.
The strongest case you can make here is that for a brief period of time being vaccinated appeared to maybe have reduced symptomatic infections. That's not what unlikely to transmit means.
There was a brief period where this study shows 2 doses reduced the rate of transmission by 68%...during a short window of time. This effect was much less and even shorter lived for later variants.
Ultimately, pretty much all of these people would go on to contract covid, making the claim that the vaccines would make you "unlikely to transmit" very obviously untrue. Remember, the statement wasn't unlikely to transmit for a few months. It was unlikely to transmit, period.
Even if they continued to reduce transmission by 68%, which they clearly didn't come close to, "unlikely to transmit" would still be an overstatement.
This I what a fleshed out argument looks like. Do you have anything substantial to offer in return?
A: If vaccinated then p(transmission) = low.
B: p(transmission) != low, given that many vaccinated people had to have transmitted.
How can A and B both be true? Or are you saying that B is not true, and everyone got sick via immaculate infection?