You omitted the entire quote in an effort to mislead. This is the full quote:
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity. I'm not even sure they should call it a vaccine. It does not prevent people from getting the SARS2 virus."
I was clearly referring to the virus, not the symptoms.
No, you weren't clearly referring to the virus in that first assertion. If you were, why didn't you say there something like "There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity from the virus. I don't mean immunity from the symptoms of the virus, I mean from catching and spreading virus itself ragardless of whether you show symptoms" so that I could tell what you meant from you first statement and I could tell you didn't mean the symptoms of the virus rather than the virus itself in the second statement? Was it so you could then backtrack later if I proved your first assertion wrong? I would think yes, it was, because trolling is what you do best. It is you who is being misleading; and deliberately so.
Obviously, in every day English, even when somebody says "immunity from the virus", they normally mean by default "immunity from the disease the virus can cause". That much is obvious because it is obviously usually immunity from the disease people are really interested in for obvious reasons. You obviously just deliberately chose to use a non-default meaning of that phrase to deliberately cause confusion purely for the purposes of trolling via dishonesty.
And the fact remains the assertion by itself of;
"There is no evidence the vaccine provides immunity"
is false and, despite your denials, I proved it is false.
Here is that proof yet again;
"...After two weeks, hardly anyone with the vaccine was getting covid-19
. But the disease kept striking those who got the placebo with clockwork regularity...."
"...Scientists welcome the first compelling evidence that a vaccine can prevent Covid 19