That's my point, nothing is really being acknowledged at all... The response will just be that there was no need to specifically test for reduced transmission when the data showed something which automatically equates to that conclusion. To make an extremely simple/stupid example for illustrations sake - if you test how far a kangaroo can jump, and the test shows you that it can jump 9 metres in length at most, you don't then need to physically check if it can jump the length of a football field - you already know it can't because of the data from the first test.... Anyone coming out and saying "you made the claim it couldn't jump a football field, but you never even tried to test it by making it try to jump a football field" would seem pretty silly....

Like I said, this is a pointless point, and I'm surprised I'm seeing it everywhere.

I also particularly dislike it because it implies that if tests HAD been carried out to prove reduced transmission rates, then the imposition of vaccine passports would be justified - a stance I would strongly oppose regardless of what tests have or haven't been done.