[native_samples]

There are two problems in your understanding.

1. The problem appears when comparing rates. Your counter-argument is assuming we're comparing absolute numbers which is false.

2. The argument about "data fudging" is the other way around. The raw data shows sharply negative effectiveness against symptomatic disease, and the UK HSA then "fudges" the data into showing the opposite using a statistical technique called TNCC - the validity of which is currently under debate, as it relies on an assumption that doesn't seem to be true.

But these mis-understandings aren't really surprising given that you admit you haven't actually bothered to read the links, and instead decided that you already know the answers because of some unrelated discussion to do with US politics. None of the people I've cited are Americans or in the USA so whatever you think did or did not happen in the 2020 election is quite irrelevant.