If the vaccination rate among infected is approx same as among the general population then the vaccine offers little to no protection from getting infected or spreading it.
You can't draw that conclusion from the data, because your sample was selected by looking for cases, and then determining vaccinations status. The only way to get a half-assed idea of vaccine efficacy from that kind of data is to calculate the odds ratio. That means you have to know the number of vaccinated people who tested negative for COVID, and the number of unvaccinated people who tested negative. You don't have that information. The report you referenced states specifically, in several spots, that you can't use the data from from vaccination status among cases, hospitalizations and deaths to determine vaccine efficacy.
To get some idea of vaccine efficacy (i.e. protection from getting infected or spreading it) you have to start the other way around. Determine vaccination/non-vaccination status, then follow for COVID/no COVID. Then at least you can calculate a relative risk.
Even the CDC is admitting it. Here’s a CNN report on CDC’s findings in Mass where 74% infected were vaccinated. They admit vaccine won’t reduce spread.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1436418096051412993/pu/vid/480x304/JHLtR8_daFFJvd6I.mp4?tag=12
Dude, why are you getting your science reporting from CNN? The CDC said no such thing. Look at the actual report where they say:
"The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First,
data from this report are insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, including the Delta variant, during this outbreak. As population-level vaccination coverage increases, vaccinated persons are likely to represent a larger proportion of COVID-19 cases. Second,
asymptomatic breakthrough infections might be underrepresented because of detection bias. Third,
demographics of cases likely reflect those of attendees at the public gatherings, as events were marketed to adult male participants; further study is underway to identify other population characteristics among cases, such as additional demographic characteristics and underlying health conditions including immunocompromising conditions.*** MA DPH, CDC, and affected jurisdictions are collaborating in this response; MA DPH is conducting additional case investigations, obtaining samples for genomic sequencing, and linking case information with laboratory data and vaccination history. Finally,
Ct values obtained with SARS-CoV-2 qualitative RT-PCR diagnostic tests might provide a crude correlation to the amount of virus present in a sample and can also be affected by factors other than viral load.††† Although the assay used in this investigation was not validated to provide quantitative results, there was no significant difference between the Ct values of samples collected from breakthrough cases and the other cases. This might mean that the viral load of vaccinated and unvaccinated persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 is also similar. However, microbiological studies are required to confirm these findings."
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm
And the “efficacy” numbers published by Pfizer and others was never about stopping infection just reducing serious symptoms.
Wrong. The reported research used "infection" as the primary endpoint. And the reported efficacy hitting the news used those numbers. Look at Table 1 in the UK data you linked to for their breakdown of efficacy for different outcomes, including "infection".