Such a controversial statement requires sources. A quick Google seems to disagree (https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-co...), although I don't have the energy to dig into it more than that since I hardly have the burden of proof.
The devil is in the details. That's a graph of deaths that are COVID positive at or shortly before death. I said "fatality rates" without that qualification. Hopefully we both agree that vaccines are useless if they just change cause of death without reducing actual mortality rates.
It's usually better to use UK data than US. US/CDC data is rather useless and corrupted (e.g. they like to classify someone as unvaccinated if the hospital couldn't quickly find proof they are vaccinated, which isn't at all the same thing). No country has quality data and the UK's has its own problems, but in general the UK statistical releases provide more data and more accurate data. Same biology everywhere so that shouldn't be an issue.
"It appears that things have got somewhat worse since last week’s report, with the hospitalisation and death rates in the double vaccinated (not boosted) exceeding that seen in the unvaccinated for all aged over 70, and with a higher death rate in those aged over 60 as well. What’s more, there now appears to be practically no benefit of vaccination with two doses of vaccine for those aged under 60, in terms of the remaining protection against hospitalisation and death."
Another analysis on the UK data (lots of graphs etc)
Equality of outcome should not be a surprise because this is what happened in the Pfizer trial as well. Actually slightly more deaths in the vaccine arm than the placebo arm, in the end, so this should be our prior expectation. They argued this was not a problem because it was not statistically significant, which is not a logical way to use statistical significance.
W.R.T. infections, again US official data is released in corrupted/useless ways but there is some useful data from the private sector. It shows what I'm talking about:
