If vaccinated and unvaccinated are hospitalised are hospitalised with infections at similar rates (like is happening in the UK) then it'd prove that current vaccines are indeed ineffective long-term, as they already fail to stop the delta variant.
Not necessarily; as a previous poster commented, it does depend on the ratio of vaccinated against unvaccinated as well.
If a population has 1000 vaccinated people and 100 unvaccinated, and ten of each end up in the hospital, it looks like the odds of ending up in the hospital are equal, since there's ten of each. However, in the vaccinated group it is only one out of every 100 that ends up in the hospital, while in the unvaccinated group it's one out of every 10.
This is why I was complaining about overview numbers being unavailable; typically you hear only one set of numbers but not the context that would let you interpret those.
Note that per capita it's much lower among fully vaccinated people.
Around 6:20 you can see the stark difference in hospitalisations and deaths between the (mostly unvaccinated) UK 2nd wave, and the (largely vaccinated) 3rd wave.
One paper I’ve seen in rural California reports numbers split between vaxed and unvaccinated. Those numbers suggest the unvaccinated are infected at a rate ~ 100x the vaccinated.
Additionally, most days I’ve seen suggests that vaccinated parties are still less likely to end up in the hospital.
I am assuming the reports you have mentioned are hospitalisaions thus ... are hospitalised at a rate ~100x
The proportion of asymptomatic infections among the included studies ranged from 1.4% to 78.3%. [1] So hard to draw too many conclusions from hospitalisation rates as to the infection rate (and virus carrier / transmitter)
That would mean admitting the anti-vaxxers were right after all. Unlikely to happen.
If it happens at all, the dial will be turned up slowly: only ever admit what cannot longer be denied plausibly.