These claims are based on accidents which resulted in hospitalisation. Each person injured is referred to in the paper as a "crash" - even when the injured person was a pedestrian!
I assume it also includes passengers. And this study didn't parse any of this out even though it was probably possible. It looks like the authors were paid for a conclusion and worked their way back.
They also have to use the government's estimate for % of population vaccinated to determine how the accident breakdown compares to the general population. That number is far from reliable. I know of people who got fraudulent vaccine certificates to be able to go on with their lives. Those people are almost certainly counted as vaccinated by the government even if they are not. That's not to mention the government manipulating the vaccinated numbers for their own benefit, which I have seen them do with other data.
The study, as most would suspect is really really flawed and designed to be misleading.
Here is a twitter thread that talks about that. There might be otherws:
https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1602650802186772481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1602650802186772481%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=
One highlight:
I assume it also includes passengers. And this study didn't parse any of this out even though it was probably possible. It looks like the authors were paid for a conclusion and worked their way back.
They also have to use the government's estimate for % of population vaccinated to determine how the accident breakdown compares to the general population. That number is far from reliable. I know of people who got fraudulent vaccine certificates to be able to go on with their lives. Those people are almost certainly counted as vaccinated by the government even if they are not. That's not to mention the government manipulating the vaccinated numbers for their own benefit, which I have seen them do with other data.