[wizzwizz4]

> The real world data has shown that the death rate among the vaccinated, if infected with COVID, can be 3 to 5.7 times higher1 than the death rate of the unvaccinated.

Okay… but how much less likely are you to get “infected”?

How are you even defining “infected”, here? If virus gets in your body and then your immune system kills it before it does much damage, were you “infected”? If the answer is no, you've got pretty serious selection bias, because you're completely ignoring everyone who was completely protected by the vaccine in the “vaccinated” group, but paying attention to everyone who didn't really need a vaccine in the “unvaccinated” group: basically ignoring all the really-healthy, great-immune-systems, unlikely-to-die people in the “vaccinated” group so, proportionally, the sicker people take up more room. So you can't even say that the vaccine makes things worse for them! If it improves their chances by 100 times, as Dr. Tom said, but the selection bias is only paying attention to the 0.2% least immune people (those who got infected when exposed after vaccination), you'd expect to see a 5× higher death rate even though the actual death rate is 0.99× lower. (Made-up numbers.)

[mortehu]

The author uses "evidence of infection" as the definition of infection, and labels all other definitions as misinformation, and writes at length about it as if it was not just a difference in definitions.

Obviously most of the people the author is criticizing are using "exposure that would cause detectable disease in non-immune individuals" as their definition, and I don't know if we have a better word for that.

[wizzwizz4]

> The author uses "evidence of infection" as the definition of infection,

So the author makes the implicit assumption that a successful vaccination doesn't prevent evidence of infection, and uses it to argue that vaccines are dangerous… then accuses everyone else of providing numbers without sufficient context?

Edit: no, actually.

> The reason, hidden in plain sight, is that a large number people who were never going to die, are no longer getting infected.

So the author does know… they were just getting spectacle in before explaining. And I do agree with the author's (eventual) point:

> Without careful control and understanding, one might erroneously conclude the Delta variant is is more lethal if you’ve been vaccinated, the vaccine is losing its efficacy, the vaccination is making people weaker, or some combination. While any of those are possible outcomes in this environment, by not being aware of the infection death rate issue from the start, because one is busy spreading misinformation about extra levels of protection that the data do not support, one misses how to properly control for these effects and analyze new data as it comes in.

But I really don't like the article. The author is the only one making those erroneous conclusions in the first place!