Not quite. If you consider that the chance of transmission isn't 100% and that given a well vaccinated population, 61% of those transmissions are stopped, it greatly reduces the spread of the disease.
This slows the burn rate.
Read Richard Preston's "The Hot Zone". The reason Ebola is such a non-problem is that it has a very high burn rate: from acquisition of the disease to death is a short path, and therefore, without outside help, it has a hard time traveling very far before all the carriers are either immune (small percentage) or dead (most of them).
Counterintuitively, a slow burn rate is actually a *bad* thing, for an infectious disease, and the more infectious the disease, the *worse* things are, if the disease has a slow burn rate.
As an historical example: Typhoid Mary's burn rate was 0.
Note how quickly the last measles outbreak died down, even with a depressingly low vaccination rate where it started.
That was primarily due to defacto quarantine, not immunization. When someone is home sick, or in the hospital in isolation sick, they are not in contact with people who are susceptible, but have not yet contracted the disease.
This is an incredibly important effect for hyper-virulent diseases like measles.