Well, it doesn't.
If 78% of people are vaccinated and 60% of the people in the hospital are vaccinated it means the unvaccinated are twice as likely to be hospitalized.
Take 1,000 people. 780 are vaccinated and 220 are not. Say 100 people are in the hospital, and it's 60 vaccinated people (60%) and 40 unvaccinated people (40%). That means the probability of landing in the hospital is 60 / 780 = 7.69% for vaccinated people and 40 / 220 = 18.19% for the unvaccinated.
Can we try to avoid making ourselves look like morons? If you can't do the math just sit this one out.
For something with the risk of DEATH as a side effect and it lowers the risk of hospitalization by ONLY 11% as compared to the unvaccinated per your math...variolation for small pox had a better track record and that is 1700's tech for a MUCH deadlier disease. Plus you need boosters how often, with each new booster that risk of death is there again? Natural immunity however seems to work BETTER than the shots and boosters? Why the fuck are you even suggesting it as a good thing?
For something with the risk of DEATH as a side effect and it lowers the risk of hospitalization by ONLY 11% as compared to the unvaccinated per your math.
Lowers the risk by 11 percentage points, not 11%. The reduction is 57.7% (18.19% x [1- 57.7%]) = 7.69%.
And yet death is a risk with each additional jab. We can't accurately measure that either because of the "vaccination" status being what 20 or 30 days after jabbed? The definitions of vaccinated throws your numbers off too by the way.
47 unvaccinated people in ICU vs 18 vaccinated people in ICU in a province of 4.371 million people without any further details of their age, pre-existing conditions, and whether they are hospitalized for COVID or with COVID
If you can't do the math just sit this one out.
(post is archived)