Those numbers aren't corrected for the ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Nor for the marginal rates of infectivity (which you could at least coarsely estimate from the former).
Eh, it doesn’t change the fact that in relation to each other they are indeed correct. And the sooner people can see the dangers of the vax the better. You people who seek perfection would never win in any war. Perfect is the enemy of good. Good luck with future concern trolling.
Those numbers aren't corrected for the ratio between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Nor for the marginal rates of infectivity (which you could at least coarsely estimate from the former).
As such, they're not extremely useful.
Eh, it doesn’t change the fact that in relation to each other they are indeed correct. And the sooner people can see the dangers of the vax the better. You people who seek perfection would never win in any war. Perfect is the enemy of good. Good luck with future concern trolling.
I seek accuracy. This isn't concern trolling, you're just demonstrating that you're statistically illiterate.
The claim in the headline is de facto wrong, and parading bullshit around just turns us into fake news.
Which makes it easier to attack us, takes away from our credibility, and makes it harder to expose what is going on in the world.
The numbers in the article title, or the ones in the Public Health England report (first comment)?
The ones in the report that the article draws from.
This can be fairly easy remedied into a working, but very rough, estimate using public vaccination rate data.
I don't have the time to do this today though.
I'll try to take a look based on your feedback. Thanks.