ehhhh im not sure how you are reading this but the chart looks quite bad
So you’d expect hospitalizations to lag 18-26 days or so. Also the chart is not saying all those groups had vaccines: those under 60 largely haven’t been. The labels could have been clearer.
It’s just a chart of change in hospitalization by age from a starting date.
Why didn't they use that label then?
So 0-59 late vaccinated means some vaccines but later in time and fewer in number.
This is what I gathered from the abstract anyway: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.08.21251325v...
Apologies for original error.
Of course, you're also correct that another important factor is that some of the cohort are not yet fully protected.
The definitions are here: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.08.21251325v...
Quote: In order to distill the possible effect of the vaccinations from other factors, including a third lockdown imposed in Israel on January 2021, we compared the time-dependent changes in number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations between (1) individuals aged 60 years and older, eligible to receive the vaccine earlier and younger individuals (0-59 years old); (2) early-vaccinated cities compared to late-vaccinated cities; (3) early-vaccinated geographical statistical areas (GSAs) compared to late-vaccinated GSAs;
At what point does common sense risk to reward ratio come into play for young people?
> Serious question: How do we know any of this reporting is true?
> There's no data sources provided, no way to check follow up health (i'e. what if these people all dropped dead a week later), no way to prove the data isn't a complete fabrication, etc. Also, they make sure to use dynamic terms so we can't be sure these numbers have any valuable meaning at all (e.g. were Covid tests with drastically different cycle counts used?). Not to mention all of this reporting is praising a single vaccine producer in a billion dollar industry.
> I just read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and this whole thing is the epitome of a manipulatable situation.
Combine the two and you no longer look "hey lets make sure people aren't lying to us," you just look like you have your own agenda.
So if you can lie with statistics, you can certainly lie even more with claimed anecdotes...
(The point of a vaccine is to trigger and train the immune system. The immune system revving up can cause symptoms of its own. If you get the fever of the immune system responding, without the lung damage cause you don't have the original actual virus, that's a huge win!)
If you toggle the 'relative' button you'll see the actual numbers - basically, hospitalization count for vaccinated elders is is decreasing, and the hospitalization of unvaccinated non-elders is slightly increasing.