There are actually more up to date numbers which you can find here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1012644/Technical_Briefing_21.pdf Using these numbers, the dead to infected ratio for the fully jabbed is 4.34x worse than the ratio for the unjabbed. However I wouldn't look at this number as it varies greatly on the age demographic. Lumping in the > 50 year olds in with the 50 or younger crowd heavily skews the numbers. You're better off looking at the age breakdown instead, as evidenced below. According to these numbers, for the age group of 50 and below, the fully jabbed had a 65% HIGHER rate of death compared to the unjabbed! However it's almost the complete opposite for the older than 50 group as the jabbed group has a nearly 70% lower fatality rate than the unjabbed. You can conclude that those 50 and younger should definitely avoid it, and maybe those above 50 might consider it. Personally I don't think anyone should take it no matter their age as treatment does exist (i.e. ivermectin) and we still have no idea what the long term side effects of these shots are. I'm also still not fully satisfied with the data provided as we really need more granular age demographic breakdowns. Increments of 10 years would be nice as I've noticed that for data sets that do have more detailed age categories the overall fatality rates increase significantly beyond 60. Also, data on comorbidities would be a lot more insightful, especially on whether or not the patients are obese. I can't remember where I read it but this one study concluded that obesity alone will triple the risk of dying from the coof. I guess they don't want us thinking folk to get the info we need to completely destroy their narratives now do they?