Is the implication that we should have expected it to? The study endpoints are clearly "vaccine efficacy (VE) against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and safety data".
It's a general principle of medicine (or at least, it used to be) that the important outcomes are the actually clinically relevant outcomes. Did people die less? Did they achieve a better quality of life? When you get into proxy metrics you get to this weird place where you can show that something is insanely effective for proxy metric X, and yet it makes no difference (or is even deleterious) in thing-you-actually-care-about Y.
Did we need RCTs demonstrating a reduction in all-cause mortality for polio or measles vaccines before it became blindingly obvious that they were a good idea?