What is and isn't "vaccinated" is a policy question, not one that can be answered by science. It's a judgment call.
What is and isn't a "vaccine" is a fact, a fact at odds with your claims.
The idea that the vaccines provide "little or no benefit" is a value judgment, however, any rational review of the evidence would demonstrate those statements to be laughable at the least and outright lies at best. Massive benefits that you don't value, perhaps, but "no" benefit? Asinine nonsense. I would even point out that the fact that you use the phrase "little or no," demonstrates that you have zero evidence to support your claims. If the effect was zero, you'd say so. If the effect was weak, you'd have a number. Instead, you characterize an empirical question as a wishy washy opinion.