Because it alters the risk/benefit calculus. A sterilizing vaccine that stops transmission in its tracks, has a clear public health benefit to every part of society, even if there are risks. A non-sterilizing vaccine does not provide that society-wide public health benefit, leaving the employer to bear risks without benefit.

> Are we really going to bother digging up the copious video evidence this is a lie?

It seems you're either a bit confused or you didn't bothered to even watch the very same video you posted.

I watched the video and nowhere in it does anyone promise anything about infections magically go away.

In fact, the infection disease specialist in the video says quite clearly that the observed reduction in spread was around 60%, and this statement is repeated in multiple occasions throughout the video.

The video was also posted over 7 months ago, prior to some of the major vaccines having been approved and made available to the public.

Please do not throw baseless accusations of anyone lying when the best proof you can come up with just refutes your accusation entirely.

Like the MD in your video pointed out, it _reduces_ transmission, it does not completely eliminate it. Nobody has ever claimed that it does.

It means that for people with an immune system that's functioning within the normal range, the vaccine entirely prevents infection (100% effectiveness). Population-wide effectiveness isn't 100%, but for most individuals it is.