If you want to argue against Emergency Use Authorization, I guess you can, but I think that may stem from a lack of understanding of the approval process (not to suggest I understand it either). When final approval came, it was from the exact same data they used to grant the EUA. The reason is that the science is done and we knew it was safe and effective. If your argument is that because we don't if its 100% safe and effective that we're all guinea pigs you may not really seem to understand our knowledgebase of the human body. While better than it was yesterday, or fifty years ago, its still grossly incomplete. You could make the exact same argument about any drug that is ever approved, EUA or full authorization. Right? But that's a silly and useless argument.
And on the vaccine front, you've read a lot about this man. Come on. You absolutely know that the COVID vaccines prevent you from getting it. And if you get it, it greatly reduces your chance of spreading it. If your complaint is that it isn't perfect, reread my previous paragraph.
As far as the study you posted, doesn't it seem somewhat normal that in a situation that the study authors define exposure as "close and prolonged" that people would test positive for the virus? Additionally, they're using PCR tests which don't align at all with the ability to spread the virus. And finally, I see nothing about the severity of these secondary attacks on the vaccinated (or unvaccinated, not that it matters) individuals. I'd bet there's a good chance that they are both asymptomatic and not contagious.
I agree that anything less than N95 is theatre.