I think Jack's point is that they're not a "vaccine" in the...

I think Jack's point is that they're not a "vaccine" in the usual sense of the word. I think that they are an moderately (but maybe decliningly so) effective prophylactic therapeutic. They certainly don't seem to be very effective at stopping one from getting an infection (the actual definition of "vaccine" in its traditional use). Nor from spreading it, if the Iceland (Ireland?) and Vermont data are anything to go by. The question begs: Why the push to take away ancient and hard gained liberties for something marginally effective? Especially now that there are "officially approved" big Pharma type therapeutics on the near horizon....Why force people to to take the shot when it may be, based on the Israeli data, that the vaccinated become "super spreaders"---or at least some data suggests so. I would be a little more hesitant before embarking on the demonization of many of our fellow citizens on the belief that I had some sort of metaphysical certitude? Why the rush to get everyone the shot? And why in the youngest age groups (children to 25) where there is almost nil chance of mortality from COVID and much more chance of ill effects from the vaccine?
I am a physician. I took the vaccine (but not booster). I am in an age group where it made sense. But in the under 25 (35?), it goes against the old Hippocratic oath which I took to proffer a treatment more damaging than the disease. That's why the phrase "I will not cut for stone" was in there in the old days! Before modern techniques pioneered by the great Dr. Hunter, a patient was more likely to die from removal of kidney stones that just leaving them in place. That, in fact, is why we have an FDA here in the US and the equivalent in other countries.