Not necessarily in every trial. I specifically talked about the over 90% figure of Pfizer. That figure was initial report based on partially collected data according to the medical journal. This was pointed out in this thread at that time. We have not discussed nor has any news reported the final study result.
I don't believe any trial could force participant (in the tens of thousands) to periodically visit the clinic to get PCR test. Double blind method can not make sure participant to visit the clinic based on their own judgement of symptom. Without mandated and enforceable measures, the trail is only as accurate as the participant's personal feelings.
The exception is if the trial are conducted among participants of organizations such as Hospital. Only this way, you can guarantee accurate reporting. This was what SinoVac did in Brazil. The outcome is of course "worse" than the rosy Pfizer because hospital staff has much higher chance of contracting virus than a general person who probably wear mask and goes nowhere.
This is to say that "this trail is not that trail". Trail is a guess work after all.
I did not say that "reducing symptoms" is the ONLY outcome of vaccine. All vaccine are essentially "reducing symptoms" including what you listed. Whether they can eliminate the virus depends on the virus mutation rate and social measures to reduce the R-rate.
Vaccine reduce symptoms of the infected person, by doing so it reduce the viral load of the infected person, therefore the person has much less chance to pass on to another person, the R-rate is therefor reduced. Eventually eliminate the virus. That is how vaccines eliminated all the viruses that you listed.
But Flu and SARS-CoV-2 are different because they mutate so fast that before the viral pool is eliminated, the new variant has began a new round.
It is not scientifically appropriate to simply say Chinese vaccines are better than mRNA based. Nor is mRNA better than inactivated vaccine. I have been fighting the notion of "mRAN" is better, but bloating inactivated vaccine is equally baseless.
The last sentence seems self contradictory. No vaccine can be used on everyone, >90% is as much as you can get.
They don't have the facility and manufacturing capability for inactivated vaccine even if they wanted to. The process requires Biosafe 3 which non of them have. China went this path because China has built the facilities and capabilities for another vaccine program 10 years ago.
All these subjects have been thoroughly discussed in this thread from 2020.