A few things to keep in mind when interpreting those numbers:
According to San Diego's official site, around 79% of residents are fully vaccinated. Because the ratio of fully-vaccinated to unvaccinated is not 1:1 (actually 4:1), it is natural that the proportion of people who caught COVID will be skewed towards the fully-vaccinated merely because they outnumber the unvaccinated by 4:1.
Imagine the following scenario: out of 1'000 people exposed to COVID, 800 are vaccinated and 200 are unvaccinated. Let's say the vaccine reduces your chances to get COVID by 60%. Let's say that the base chance of you getting COVID if exposed is 50%. Thus:
50% of the unvaccinated get COVID, that is 100 people.
50% of the unvaccinated get COVID, that is 400 people. BUT, the vaccine prevents the disease from developing in 60% of the cases, thus the actual number of people who test positive is: 0.5 * 0.6 * 800 = 240 people.
So in the end, we have 240 + 100 = 340 people with COVID. Out of those 340, 240 or 70.5% are fully vaccinated. So, even though the vaccine did reduce the chances of developing the disease, the number of vaccinated people with COVID still far outweighs the number of unvaccinated in the total statistics.
The same effect as explained above is bound to influence the percentage of deaths too.
In addition to the proportions effect, there is another bias when it comes to the percentage of deaths. Namely, that people who are at risk are far more likely to be fully vaccinated than people who arent. If you look at the statistics on that same page (page 3), you'll see that 41% of deaths are people who are double vaxed and fully boosed (67% if you count the non-boostet vaxed)!
BUT, 99.9% of people in the age group at risk are fully vaxed. And they are basically the only ones dying of covid (see page 8).
The inverse bias is to be expected for the unvaxed. Those tend to be younger, stronger and healthier people living predominantly in rural areas (sun, vitamin D, exercise, early exposure to pathogens [playing outside, dealing with animals], etc.)
it is natural that the proportion of people who caught COVID will be skewed towards the fully-vaccinated merely because they outnumber the unvaccinated by 4:1.
But it’s not natural for it to be skewed if the vax were truly a vax designed to stop Covid. It’s not. My take away is that exactly what so many said would happen to the vaxed, Is actually happening.
The thing is, THEY KNEW the vaccines were not that effective pretty early on. Here is a CDC leak from July 2021 stating in plain English (slide 12) the vaccine effectiveness (VE):
When I first saw that leak, I realize that it was not only a small elite who suffered from a God complex and saw us as ignorant tax cattle who shouldn't be given the "luxury" of self-efficacy and self-determination. Nearly ALL institutions were engaging in these "noble lies" to "protect" us, dirty peasants, from ourselves. "So what if a few plebs die or are injured for life? The important thing is that we preserve the enterprise that guarantees us our wealth and power."
Here's the official report on OP's screencap (the table can be found on page 3).
A few things to keep in mind when interpreting those numbers:
According to San Diego's official site, around 79% of residents are fully vaccinated. Because the ratio of fully-vaccinated to unvaccinated is not 1:1 (actually 4:1), it is natural that the proportion of people who caught COVID will be skewed towards the fully-vaccinated merely because they outnumber the unvaccinated by 4:1.
Imagine the following scenario: out of 1'000 people exposed to COVID, 800 are vaccinated and 200 are unvaccinated. Let's say the vaccine reduces your chances to get COVID by 60%. Let's say that the base chance of you getting COVID if exposed is 50%. Thus:
50% of the unvaccinated get COVID, that is 100 people.
50% of the unvaccinated get COVID, that is 400 people. BUT, the vaccine prevents the disease from developing in 60% of the cases, thus the actual number of people who test positive is: 0.5 * 0.6 * 800 = 240 people.
So in the end, we have 240 + 100 = 340 people with COVID. Out of those 340, 240 or 70.5% are fully vaccinated. So, even though the vaccine did reduce the chances of developing the disease, the number of vaccinated people with COVID still far outweighs the number of unvaccinated in the total statistics.
The same effect as explained above is bound to influence the percentage of deaths too.
In addition to the proportions effect, there is another bias when it comes to the percentage of deaths. Namely, that people who are at risk are far more likely to be fully vaccinated than people who arent. If you look at the statistics on that same page (page 3), you'll see that 41% of deaths are people who are double vaxed and fully boosed (67% if you count the non-boostet vaxed)!
BUT, 99.9% of people in the age group at risk are fully vaxed. And they are basically the only ones dying of covid (see page 8).
The inverse bias is to be expected for the unvaxed. Those tend to be younger, stronger and healthier people living predominantly in rural areas (sun, vitamin D, exercise, early exposure to pathogens [playing outside, dealing with animals], etc.)
But it’s not natural for it to be skewed if the vax were truly a vax designed to stop Covid. It’s not. My take away is that exactly what so many said would happen to the vaxed, Is actually happening.
You are absolutely correct.
If the vaccine really was 99.9999999% effective as they claimed in 2021, these numbers would be very different!
The thing is, THEY KNEW the vaccines were not that effective pretty early on. Here is a CDC leak from July 2021 stating in plain English (slide 12) the vaccine effectiveness (VE):
Against infection: 61%
Against mild illness: 75%
Against severe illness: 85%
(Edit: Oh. and btw, these numbers refer to the Alpha and Delta variants. The vaccine is almost worthless against the Omicron variant, dropping to a pathetic 8.8% effectiveness after 20 weeks)
When I first saw that leak, I realize that it was not only a small elite who suffered from a God complex and saw us as ignorant tax cattle who shouldn't be given the "luxury" of self-efficacy and self-determination. Nearly ALL institutions were engaging in these "noble lies" to "protect" us, dirty peasants, from ourselves. "So what if a few plebs die or are injured for life? The important thing is that we preserve the enterprise that guarantees us our wealth and power."
They also knew about the risk of severe adverse events like myocarditis and thrombosis from the vaccine even before they approved it for emergency use, btw. (I've read a leaked FDA inner memorandum where officials are urging the committee to restrict vaccination to at-risk populations only due to potential vaccine side effects, but the old link is dead and I cannot find it on my machine).
Good attempt at providing logic and reason but the smooth brains here can't comprehend any of it. Hat tip for your attempt though.