It's an antivaxxer classic, for them effective means 100% effective under all conditions, otherwise it's ineffective.
It's called fallacy of composition[0] when they cherry pick the cases where it's less effective to infer it's not effective as a whole, and fallacy of division[1] when trying to do reductio ad absurdum by claiming that, if it's effective as a whole, it should also be so under all underlying metrics.
A reasonable definition of effectiveness would be that it stops the virus from spreading through a population. Even in the case of Israel with the highest vaccination rate in the world, it has failed this test. I personally would say that it is effective because it has prevented a lot of deaths. But a reasonable person could disagree.
> Most vaccines do fully stop the spread, even for measles,
No, they don't. [0][1]
From [1]
> Two doses of MMR vaccine are about 97% effective at preventing measles; one dose is about 93% effective.
Obviously those 3% and 7% do spread, even though the symptoms are milder. For the 97 and 93% ones there's indeed very limited (if any) shedding [3].
Now that's holding different bars, because asymptomatic measles infections are less contagious by themselves, regardless of vaccination status, unlike COVID-19 which is still relatively contagious while asymptomatic. So you're attributing a positive point of measles infections as a fault of the COVID-19 vaccines, which is, as you might see, a pretty misinformed take.
Also, sterilizing immunity as you seem to understand doesn't really exist, in case that's the misconception you have [2]. In the end it's all about viral load, route of exposure, and level and type of immunity. A mucosal vaccine would behave more in the way your expecting intramuscular ones to work[4].
The fact is that the efficiency of the vaccine is being understood as we go. We started with the initial dose and are now considering second and third boosters because the efficiency diminished faster than expected
That’s beside the point of the WaPo article. YouTube is making the decision to remove any content that goes against vaccines, based in truth or not.
We started with 2 doses. Nobody talked about second or third boosters, because only a first booster has been recommended for those most at risk.
Is this the kind of information you're worried will be deleted, that is, gross misunderstandings of reality in the best case, outright lies to generate engagement in the worst?
It's called fallacy of composition[0] when they cherry pick the cases where it's less effective to infer it's not effective as a whole, and fallacy of division[1] when trying to do reductio ad absurdum by claiming that, if it's effective as a whole, it should also be so under all underlying metrics.
Two sides of the same nonsense coin.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division