Yes, we all understand that. You have to use Bayesian reasoning here. The prior probability of one person infecting another they've spent little time next to, if the vaccines are "extremely effective" to use the claims we've all heard, is very, very low. That's the whole point of saying the vaccines are effective.
What you're arguing is that this event is merely an extreme fluke that a hungry press managed to dredge out of ... somewhere. That doesn't hold water because Omicron is only days old as a recognized variant at all, and these aren't 'two random people' but rather one clearly and recognizably infecting another in a low density space (e.g. not a conference or other big accumulation of people), despite that they're doctors and thus highly vaccinated.
Now, here's something to chew on. The claims of vaccine efficacy you keep reading are all wrong. They aren't measures of relative likelihoods of getting infected as you might imagine. They are heavily adjusted using a statistical methodology that's known to malfunction in the presence of variants. The raw, unadjusted data is unfortunately hidden almost everywhere, except England, where the public health authorities publish it alongside the adjusted numbers. And the raw numbers show that vaccination makes people more likely to get infected, not less. The rates per 100k are higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.
This has led to the ultimate absurdity of the UK public health agency claiming, "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection".
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-...
Someone made a dashboard you can use the explore the UK numbers here:
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/t.coddington/viz/UKRe...