stock here: why hasn’t someone sued these lying rags?
That’s correct, the study lumps together everyone who hasn’t had an optimal amount of vaccines. Which means the unvaccinated are in the same group as people who have had 1, 2 or even 3 doses.
Searching through the supplemental data, they have not separated the unvaccinated data from the under-vaccinated data anywhere.
How can they possibly claim that vaccines have saved lives and hospitalisations when they aren’t comparing the vaccinated against a control group (the unvaccinated).
Tucked away at the end of the paragraph in the ‘Discussion’ section is this little snippet:
Our estimates for the 16–74 years and 75 years and older age groups show that being unvaccinated (strictly maximum dose deficit) was associated with similar or lower hazard ratio for severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with being vaccinated but having a vaccine deficit of at least one dose. This association could be due to vaccine waning and the fact that the most recent dose for those with a vaccine deficit frequently occurred many months before the study start date. The association could also be due to an uncontrolled selection effect for healthier individuals being more likely to be unvaccinated.
Their hidden data shows that being unvaccinated (not under-vaccinated) was associated with a LOWER hazard ratio for severe COVID-19 outcomes compared with the vaccinated (with a vaccine deficit of at least one dose).