2 ms·

Ontario is 89% fully vaccinated by your own link. In order to assess whether vaccinated are getting infected at same or higher rates (certainly untrue, but tha

Ontario is 89% fully vaccinated by your own link. In order to assess whether vaccinated are getting infected at same or higher rates (certainly untrue, but that is what you assert), you have to adjust for the fact that there are vastly more vaccinated in Ontario. A quick and dirty (but still pretty good) method is to simply multiply the "unvaccinated" numbers in "3rd graph. Case rate per 100k" by 10. If you make that adjustment it is quite clear that the unvaccinated are getting decimated by infection as compared to the vaccinated. This holds for graph 1 (in ICU) and graph 2 (in hospital) as well.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
That makes zero sense what you wrote. You're proposing to adjust the numbers twice. 3rd graph. January 5th (peak): 78 cases per 100k people in the unvaccinated group. 102 cases per 100k people who were double vaccinated January 26th: 35 cases per 100k people in the unvaccinated group. 37 cases per 100k people in the double vaccinated group. My claim stands that the vaccinated have the same or higher chance of being infected based on this data.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
feoren 5y ago
From the link: "Rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 is calculated by dividing the number of cases for a vaccination status, by the total number of people with the same vaccination status, and then multiplying by 100,000." I'm as surprised as you are, but those particular graphs do indeed support GP's statement about vaccinated having higher case rates. (Doesn't mean the risk is the same: are the vaccinated more likely to have parties?) But GP has no evidence for the vaccinated "spreading it just the same".