The CDC study gives some credence to your theory but your conclusion is by all evidence wrong. It shows nothing about the transmissibility of vaccinated people who test positive. It also disregards previous evidence before the delta variant that vaccinations widely prevented positive tests. So there is SOME effect there. Taking a study that says “there’s definitely some chance of transmission” and making the conclusion “there’s no difference” only happens due to your predetermined conclusion. A real look at the actual body of evidence on vaccines necessarily draws different conclusions.
One need only look at the overlay of cases and vaccination rates across different US states to show you’re just flat out wrong.
Most of what you say is correct, but saying absolutely that unvaccinated people are endangering other people and vaccinated people are not is also false.
Don't get me started on how I'm a better driver when tipsy than the average 80 year old that still has their license...
The tongue in cheek point I'm trying to make is that too much of the conversation focuses on relative risk. Relative risk obsession has people not taking more risky, but still incredibly safe (at least in the short term) vaccines here in Australia. Absolute risk (or its delta) tends to be a much more salient number to the victim.
It does help the antivaxx crowd in some circuitous arguments however, as the chance of an unvaccinated person killing a vaccinated person is low if vaccines work!
One need only look at the overlay of cases and vaccination rates across different US states to show you’re just flat out wrong.