Yours is an example of fuzzy thinking.
I don't think so…
You assume that just because Pfizer did not explicitly test for person-to-person transmission during the clinical trials before emergency use authorization, that person-to-person transmission is still not known.
There is no basis in fact from which to make the assertion it prevents transmission. And Pfizer runs away from the whole idea that it has any effect on transmission of Covid at a breakneck speed.
So you want us to believe the science, until the science didn't even consider a question, and then we're supposed to believe whatever it is that you say, instead of the science. Thanks for that spectacular example of Crystal clear thinking.
The clinical trials were primarily to prove safety and effectiveness against contracting symptomatic covid. Community spread can only be evaluated after the vaccine has been released to the community.
That is among the more stupid things that we will ever hear asserted on this thread I'm sure for the next 12 months. Scientists do in fact design tests for precisely this kind of thing. I'm rather well-informed in this area. I was a member of the underwriting syndicate for North American Vaccine. I've done a great deal of due diligence in this area at the level where it really counts dollars and cents.
Since the vaccine has been released, the data is now in, and it does in fact reduce the spread of the virus within a community.
If you think that the scientific method includes rolling and untested vaccine out into the community and seeing "what happens" you're out of your stark raving mind.
Learn more about your misinformation social media post here.
Please tell me that you were not such a blithering idiot that you get your information from a 28-year-old fact checker whose job it is to come to a predetermined conclusion in order to support a political agenda. For pity sake, tell me that you're not that stupid.
At the bottom of every one of these stupid fact checks is a restatement of the question which completely changes the question. Here's how they do it in this fact check:
"posts claiming that a Pfizer executive “admitted” the company did not test its COVID vaccine’s ability to prevent virus transmission before receiving marketing approval imply that the company had been required to do so or claimed to have done so,"
The requirement to test transmissibility was no part of the argument and absolutely no part of the implication. This is the trick behind every single one of these deliberately misleading fact checks. They mistake the question so they can come up with the answer that they want regardless of the facts.