Yes, but it makes sense in that context. I just got this from the comments on Twitter, by the way, and I'm basing my conclusion on the fact that sterilizing immunity is a real thing. The way he says it without thinking about how it comes across gives me the impression that he's studied it so long, he's unaware that the laypeople don't realize what sterilization means in this context. It's also important to note the etymology of sterilize. It originally referred to a general destruction of fertility. I'm not sure if it'd make sense to talk about rendering a virus "infertile". But one definition that does make sense in this context is to render something free of micro-organisms.

And another thing. In the Twitter cut, it looks like the interviewer has an "uh oh" moment, interrupting the scientist because he's saying more than he's supposed to. However, in the full interview it becomes clear that he was wrapping up the interview, then realized Bell was still talking, and he apologizes for cutting him off. There's nothing strange going on here.