While this paper looks scary, keep in mind that the journal isn't particularly reputable and that the vast majority of studies find that mRNA vaccines are safe. It's certainly worth studying this (and many more researchers will continue to do so) but not really anything to merit not getting vaccinated.
If you want to confirm any pre-existing belief you may have, you can find fringe papers to support essentially anything.
That statistics are also weird. Not necessarily wrong, but the article doesn't control for the rate of COVID infection in Israel, which is a major cofounder, and of the three authors one is an ER doc and two are Management professors -- no epidemiologists, public health, or other expertise. They also pick seemingly random periods of time to analyze against each other.
My guess is that a more correctly written paper would have been published in a better journal (maybe even Nature) if it got the same results, but it didn't.
No control for air pollution either, since the time series is confounded by a lockdown-induced drop[0][1] and subsequent rebound. Nitrogen dioxide from vehicles and factories seems to cause an increase in heart attacks within one hour.[2]
Back on topic. A vaccine has risks. Not having a vaccine has risks. What one really cares about is whether one’s (personal or demographic) risks of serious medical issues are significantly decreased by getting the vaccine, or if one’s psychosomatic psychological issues outweigh the medical benefits. We all know this, but unfortunately discussions often seem to get sidetracked and only consider the risk of the vaccine.
Yes I’m wondering why these various comments directly challenge this publisher and publication’s credibility? Especially without a substantive explanation since the content is available for this type of dialog. Strange.
A Berlin News paper
reports of the public inquiry of firefighters and emergency personnel to investigate the root cause of a rise in different "heart issue calls" of 27-31% in 2021 (40k calls) compared to 2018/2019.
Maybe it has something to do with a new virus going around, there was also an increase in 2020... There's a reason why they're comparing 2021 to 2018/2019 and not to 2020.
Correlation between rollouts and virus-infections respectively, show that the mRNA vaccine is almost twice as likely to cause a cardiovascular event. So Covid is indeed dangerous, but not quite as dangerous as the vaccine it seems.
The risk-benefit calculation is strongly age dependent. For old people there's no question about the benefit of the vaccines. For healthy children it's close.
It's very, very, very far from close. The most recent study from Christine Stabell out of Copenhagen showed that even if you're in the age group where the vaccine cuts covid mortality in half, you're overall 7% more likely to die by taking the vaccine. We need to get back to the drawing board on this one.
very common fallacy: absolute vs relative risk. kids have a miniscule risk of dying from covid (0.01%?) therefore reducing this already very very small risk isn't doing much at all. Of course kids do not require an experimental vaccine for a not at all very lethal viral infection.
The virus will be around forever so unless you live in a sterile bubble everyone will be occasionally exposed. So infection isn't 100% guaranteed, but it's close.
This very much depends on the age groups... For people younger than 40, covid still killed less people than traffic accidents, overdoses, suicides etc. in my country. In the 85yo+ group, the story is a bit different.
Interestingly enough, most of the covid restrictions affected the young the most, while the old were mostly unaffected (tehnically they were all affected the same, but most old people are at home and in beds when curfews started).
Well yeah, but you have to put things in perspective... we took away basic human rights (movement, assembly, relatively even speech), to save less people than if we banned driving for <40yo. Even with the vaccines, and the passive forcing of vaccinations (eg. limiting stuff you can do unless vaccinated or tested daily), most of the services where you needed the vaccine/test were used by the young people (shopping malls, cinemas, etc.), and not old people (who stereotipically just go to normal stores, pharmacy and a doctor).
Just the number of extra suicides due to curfews was probably higher than the death rates in those age groups.
In comparison, in total (so all age groups, including the 85yo+), we had more cigarette related deaths in those two years than of covid, and we still sell cigarettes pretty much everywhere.
No, we did that to save the much higher number of people that would have been affected if we didn't impose restriction at the peaks. How much higher those numbers would have been is of course debatable. But given the exponential nature of spread, one assumes many more people would have been infected. And running out of hospital capacity to treat people would obviously have made deaths much worse.
Cigarettes are very different in that mostly affect the person smoking (in many countries we do indeed ban smoking in enclosed public places).
There is literally no reason or evidence that think that the restrictions had any effect at all let alone a significant one worth the trade offs. If for some reason you are allergic to Sweden you can compare England Winter 2022 with Germany, or Scotland or Wales. Or Germany to Switzerland after Feb, 16th 2022 when they dropped their measures. Or Florida with Cali. It didn't do anything. I am sorry but it's time to learn the truth.
You cannot compare the effects of restrictions on a vaccinated population to the effects on an unvaccinated one.
Restrictions were not introduced to "save" people, in such a way that you could restrict the lockdowns to the more vulnerable elderly population. Such a lockdown would have to be draconian (China-style).
Rather, restrictions were introduced (except for Australia and various countries in Asia which had zero case policy) to curb the growth in the occupation of hospital beds before the hospitals were full. Up until the introduction of vaccines and more contagious variants (Delta/Omicron) there were clear effects on Rt from the introduction and lifting of restrictions. Reduction of the reproduction rate cannot be achieved with a lockdown only of >60 year old people, since (like vaccination) the effect is inversely proportional to the amount of people not being locked down.
I am not doing that at all. Switzerland for example has similar vax rates to Germany and I'd bet that Flordia is similar to Cali. You can even compare before any vaccinations and it's the same picture.
The reasons given for lockdown were ever shifting. Just very recently German Health Minister Karl Lauterach said we have to keep measures because 200 people a day die of Coronavirus and that's just too many.
> Up until the introduction of vaccines and more contagious variants (Delta/Omicron) there were clear effects on Rt from the introduction and lifting of restrictions.
Where, when, how? Even the very first lockdown in Germany happened when R was already <1. That used to be on the RKIs (our CDC) website.
What I don't understand is that I have to keep coming with facts (and still get censored) and you (the pro-lockdowners) can just keep doing argument by false assertions without showing any data whatsoever.
> The reasons given for lockdown were ever shifting
I agree that communication was awful all over the board and from both sides.
> Where, when, how?
Italy spring 2021. Note that in general I am talking about 2021 data not 2022. I wouldn't even call 2022 restrictions a lockdown, they are really more of a vaccination and mask mandate.
> I agree that communication was awful all over the board
I appreciate the peace offering but you have to understand that, for me, this topic is deeply personal. I am not willing to let it go on "oh let's call it awful and move on". Maybe in the beginning there was an earnest motivation to avoid suffering but the rest of the time, the public was simply deceived if not down right gaslit.
As a general answer: Corona is seasonal depending on latitude and on northern latitude spring is the end of it's season. So no matter what you do, you get a decrease in cases anyway. But if you mean something else, please show me in detail.
The excuse for lack of evidence seems to so often boil down to "that wasn't true lockdown". However, the measures in 2022 followed the same logic as the early lockdowns and were justified with the same grab bag of reasons. For instance, in winter 2021/2022, in Germany, I wasn't allowed to do anything except shopping for essentials because I am not vaccinated. For me, it absolutely was exactly like lockdown: same restrictions, same reasons, same dire predictions what would happen without these measures.
So I want an explanation for why cases didn't "explode" in Switzerland when they dropped their measures 16th of Feb 2022, a full one and a half month ahead of Germany and why are cases now dropping like a rock in Germany three weeks after repealing most measures.
> no matter what you do, you get a decrease in cases anyway. But if you mean something else, please show me in detail.
Not entirely, for example US tended to have waves during the summer that Europe didn't have (more AC and less outdoor activity perhaps?). But yeah it seems to be mostly seasonal and definitely it comes and goes in waves of roughly 2 months.
> why cases didn't "explode" in Switzerland when they dropped their measures 16th of Feb 2022,
Obviously the rate of vaccination had a role in the lack of "explosion" (transmission remains but is lower, and there are more mild and asymptomatic cases that aren't traced). However cases did start to grow around 25th of February, inverting the previous trend[1], and the simplest explanation is that measures had some effect.
In fact the share of positive tests in Switzerland is so ridiculously high (50% around mid March) that the cases probably did explode, but were mostly mild or asymptomatic thanks to the vaccine. So again you cannot compare effects of suspending restrictions in 2022 on what would have happened without lockdowns in 2020.
Furthermore, while deaths among 40-60 year olds are pretty low, that's less true for hospitalizations. The impact of uncontrolled spreading before vaccinations would have been worse than a CFR measured in "ideal" conditions where everybody had access to healthcare.
In Denmark at least, through all of 2020 we had 0.0% increase in mortality. 2 weeks after we started vaccinating that number climbed to 12.6%, so we might find that the vaccines have killed even more people.
Certainly if you did the deceptive deed of tracking "dead with vaccine" like we do for the disease.
> Certainly if you did the deceptive deed of tracking "dead with vaccine" like we do for the disease.
Where are they not tracking "dead with covid" separately from "dead from covid"? Here in the UK we have very clearly recorded separate numbers for these (the "dead from" number were ~66% the "dead with" numbers until recently with the rise of Omicron meaning that far more people have covid and far few people are dying from it).
In Denmark we have only tracked "dead with" and then mid 2021 we had a large study to figure out the actual number of dead, which turned out to be about 120 people.
Hundreds of thousands died with a positive PCR test, yes. But then everyone who died had one taken. Certainly, a number of those died because because of this particular infection but the average COVID death was a very old person who had two or more preexisting conditions.
So the real question is: how many have died who would not have died of the flu or RSV or Andenovirus or Beta-coronavirus or any of the other innumerable causes of respiratory infections?
Not to mention, this has nothing to do with people younger than 40 or even younger than 60.
There is data on excess mortality and the answer is, a lot. This is also why the with/from covid debate is pointless. If 100.000 people have died more than they would usually die, then no matter if they died due to covid or their condition was aggravated by it, that's 100.000 more people dying than in a year without covid.
Well except that a lot of countries didn't have any unusual excess mortality in 2020. And anyway how do you separate the deaths caused by the measures from the deaths caused by COVID?
"Bergmann’s case illustrates a shift on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic, as doctors rethink when and how to use mechanical ventilators to treat severe sufferers of the disease - and in some cases whether to use them at all. While initially doctors packed intensive care units with intubated patients, now many are exploring other options.
England had 70.000 more deaths than usual in 2020 (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...), how many of those were from care homes? The balance was ~30.000 in mid April, were all of them in care homes? And even if so, how do you justify the remaining 40.000 that died later in the year?
> Killing people with ventilators:
Also April 2020, so the question is the same. How do you justify the excess deaths from the second half of 2020 and 2021?
> except that a lot of countries didn't have any unusual excess mortality in 2020
Which? How did death causes compare in 2019 and 2020?
These are two examples of how measures specifically meant to fight the disease caused a lot of deaths. Care homes also had deaths from loneliness and despair due to banning family visits, another pandemic measure that is still going on today.
“There are still obstacles in place when trying to visit a loved one in a care home and the impact has been and continues to be devastating. The safeguarding issues I am seeing and hearing about are atrocious. Residents left for hours in dirty, wet incontinence pads leading to dangerous pressure ulcers. Malnutrition. Dehydration. End of life medication given to patients without their or their family’s consent. Psychological trauma, post traumatic stress and suicides have resulted because of this. Multiple systems are failing, including Local Authorities and the CQC. It is a complex situation that needs a bold approach by both empowering families and galvanising government action to hold public bodies to account and stop private equity firms placing profit over people.”
The single largest group of people, between 40% and 60% depending on country, to die from coronavirus were from care homes [1],[2] so it stands to reason that measures applying to care homes had an outsized effect on corona virus mortality.
And indeed, Sweden, after admitting it did wrong by the care home residence in Spring 2020 and taking steps to rectify the situation, got their deaths under control which allowed them to end 2020 at (minus) -2.3% age-adjusted relative mortality.
This study uses unadjusted mortality which does not account for an aging population. In particular it doesn't account for Sweden's 2019 negative excess mortality. I look at this report by the UKs Office of National Statistics:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...
Table "Table 2: Relative cumulative excess mortality ..." is the most interesting. It shows that more than half of these European countries had absolutely nothing exceptional going on mortality wise between 2020 and June 2021. I'm not sure how the Corona narrative (100000k death / month without lockdowns!!) can account for this data. If it's really only the virus we should've seen mass mortality everywhere especially the places with a more "hands off" approach like Sweden. That's just not what happened.
> half of these European countries had absolutely nothing exceptional going on mortality wise between 2020 and June 2021
That's not how I read it. First, all except Norway, Finland, Estonia, Denmark had at least +20% in 2020. Second, it's the peak that the graph plots so you cannot use it to take conclusions over the whole year. All the graph can tell you is how hard the country was hit by the spring 2021 wave compared to 2020.
The way I read it, almost all countries had extra mortality despite lockdowns, and despite a very mild flu year in 2020 and flu being basically not a thing in 2021.
In fact the only countries with negative mortality are either islands or the northern Europe countries which have long been known to be outliers.
The rise started with 15 % in 2020. More or less 0 % were vaccinated at the end of that year.
In 2021 incidences rose another 10 % or so. To ascribe this rise to vaccinations and just shrug at the year before is... creative.
FWIW something that would seem to fit almost perfectly is infections, which were about twice as high in 2021 compared to 2020.
Also: this is an association of "vaccine-critical" firemen asking these questions, and the data is from 911 calls, which are not diagnoses. They are also trending towards being more specific in their classification scheme because they now have specific protocols and equipment for some indications, such as strokes.
The numbers are less impressive then what they seem, and IMO the numbers look like they were computed in a way that resulted in what the authors wanted. For example, weekly counts of cardiac arrest calls are computed using a five-week centered moving-average, and COVID-19 and vaccination doses are computed using a three-week centered moving-average. I'd assume that using three weeks for cardiac arrest calls, the numbers would look less correlated.
> A mega journal (also mega-journal and megajournal) is a peer-reviewed academic open access journal designed to be much larger than a traditional journal by exercising low selectivity among accepted articles. It was pioneered by PLOS ONE. This "very lucrative publishing model" was soon emulated by other publishers.
It's quite easy to understand how face-masks reduce the amount of saliva that's released into the air in a room when someone coughs or talks, and there's also a reason why masks are used in hospitals and in operating rooms way before COVID.
Masks are not a 100% solution, and they obviously have some issues (comfort, heat as well as environmental), but it's not surprising that they help with a disease that spreads using saliva and other "respiratory droplets".
a) that corona spreads through aerosols which we have known since mid 2020
b) Mask don't even work against Influenza which actually is transmitted via droplets.
"Ten professional singers performed a passage of the Ludwig van Beethoven’s “Ode of Joy” in two experimental setups—each with and without surgical masks. First, they sang with previously inhaled vapor of e-cigarettes. The emitted cloud was recorded by three cameras to measure its dispersion dynamics. Secondly, the naturally expelled larger droplets were illuminated by a laser light sheet and recorded by a high-speed camera."
Are you serious?
B:
Have you even read through your own link?
CRCT: "No difference was found between hand hygiene or hand hygiene plus face mask in household contacts of influenza patients"
Case-control study: "No marked reduction in infection"
Cohort-Study: "The use of masks does not seem warranted if other infection control procedures such as handwashing are used"
It was well known before 03/2020 that masks don't do anything. That's why every public health expert and official was adamant that they don't do anything. That's why nobody had any. Didn't you ever wonder why no one had PPE on hand if it's so important?
On page 25 you can find a table of RCTs that show exactly how useless masking is vs Influenza.
People who "follow the science" seem to be particularly unclear about positivism and the scientific method. Whoever is making huge claims about masks, lockdowns and vaccines needs to understand that burden of proof is on them. THEY need to present a theory that is consistent with ALL of the quality data that exists, not just some cherry picked retrospective garbage from China.
Masks seem silly no matter what if you understand how corona spreads or
if you know how after 2 years, in diagrams, you can't see a difference between unmasked/cloth masked/ffp2,N95 masked countries or even counties.
This is good data, and as the paper states, it is important that vaccine recipients are aware of possible side effects so that they know to seek medical attention if such arise. That said, it's important to note the scale of the effect observed. Looking at the cardiac arrest calls for instance, we're looking at an increase from roughly 7 to 10 per week, while hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses were being administered per week. Likewise ACS calls went from 30-35 per week up to a peak of around 45. These are obviously very significant increases, but still remained unlikely events. That said, unvaccinated case fatality rate from covid in that age range is also very low:
> Age-specific IFR estimates form a J shape, with the lowest IFR occurring at age 7 years (0·0023%, 95% uncertainty interval [UI] 0·0015–0·0039) and increasing exponentially through ages 30 years (0·0573%, 0·0418–0·0870), 60 years (1·0035%, 0·7002–1·5727), and 90 years (20·3292%, 14·6888–28·9754).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
But of course we can't directly compare the two, as we'd need to know the fatality rate from these CA and ACS calls, not to mention looking at other negative outcomes short of death. Regardless, it certainly appears to me that vaccination still makes sense for all ages, but if you assume the risk of these side effects is the same for each booster, whereas the impacts on serious covid outcomes are diminishing, I guess there would be a point at which the risk of the side effects would outweigh the marginal benefit of additional / more frequent boosters for young people.
Note that we are talking about an increase from 150 to 190 here. And the 150 in 2020 was actually lower than 2019, so it may just be regression to the mean. And it's significant in exactly one age/gender combination, of about a dozen tested.
Disclaimer : I have no competencies whatsoever on judging the matter but there are other studies that conclude to increased risk of some kind of cardiac failure, even for young people as a consequence of COVID (something the the first line of the article acknowledges). What possible mechanism could play in even more risk after vaccination ?
The only mechanism I am able to imagine would be the COVID spike protein itself since it produced both during the infection and vaccination. But I know biology can be incredibly complicated times. So, provided the results are statically significant since it seems to be the standard, what possible hypotheses can be made ?
We actually do know that the adenovirus-vectored vaccines (ChAdOx1, etc) do cause blood clotting disorders.
> The only mechanism I am able to imagine would be the COVID spike protein itself since it produced both during the infection and vaccination.
But this is bad logic.
The mechanism behind the adenovirus clotting adverse reactions is that Platlet Factor 4 sticks to the adenovirus capsid. It shares nothing with SARS-CoV-2 at all. Since the virus sticks to the capsid it is endocytosed as the virus particle enters cells. That results in PF4 inside of cells, which is not supposed to happen. Some people have the 'right' HLA subtype and bits of the PF4 molecule is displayed on the surface of their cells. Then further some breakdown happens in the bodies identification of "self" proteins in some people and the immune system starts to produce autoantibodies against PF4. This autoantibody attack results in vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia.
Both SARS-CoV-2 viral infection and adenovirus-based vaccines can cause clotting issues. Biologically they only really share the spike protein in common. But the clotting issues observed after ChAdOx vaccination are due to a mechanism unique to adenoviruses (and naturally occurring human adenoviruses may cause the same issues, but it has never been detected before).
[The other comment here is also full of nonsense. The spike protein is contained within the cell producing it. There is detectable spike protein in the blood of some people post-vaccine but at femtogram per mL concentrations that require special assays to detect, likely due to lysing of the cells in lymph nodes and tiny bit escaping. This is very unlikely to have any direct biological effect]
When the vaccine came out it was believed that the spike is harmless but later it was shown that the spike protein is enough to cause symptoms similar to the disease COVID. [1]
For a long time people thought that the mRNA, and therefore the spike from the vax, would stay in the muscle tissue and be broken down in a matter of days. This study [2] in Cell found that, actually, the mRNA can get to the lymph nodes and cause spike production for as long as 60 days. Spike protein is also found in the blood of 96% of vaccinees and the concentration is comparable to that of an acute infection.
Can anyone offer insights to how reliable this article is? I don’t know the field and am reduced to looking at superficial signals, like: I see business school bylines and the “see additional publications by this author” links don’t turn up anything… but the Nature imprint seems impressive?
Can anyone weigh in on the methodology or data?
(Interesting to note that the linked page puts this article in something like the 99th percentile for how much it’s tweeted, which I would put squarely in the “reduces my confidence” category…)
Looks like a straight forward article. Instead of a conclusion you are left with a discussion, which sadly is quite weak, but this seems to be the point. (As I understand it after skimming through it)
Basically you have a data set and some statistical evaluation. The gabs are filled with some medical and statistical "Mumbo Jambo" I didn't read. Seems professional, the graphs are pretty clear cut, which is nice.
The discussion basically states that the data is flawed for the purpose of making clear connections and urges the necessity to provide better data in the future. They aren't even able to make their derived call data public, due to privacy laws in this case.
They are absolute right and have a valid point here. No reason not to publish this and it conveys some important messages.
We should gather better data and find a way to share it, without touching on the privacy of individuals. A very difficult topic I personally wouldn't touch with a stick.
> A very difficult topic I personally wouldn't touch with a stick
Agree completely. This topic has got so ideological that if (when) it comes up in conversation I tend to demur and politely change the subject.
Perhaps at some point there will be a genuine attempt to gather more data on just who genuinely benefits from vaccination (obese/elderly/other comorbidities?), and who doesn't (young/healthy).
One thing we can be sure of is that no such study will ever be funded by Big Pharma.
It's Scientific Reports from the same publisher, but not Nature, the journal itself. Scientific Reports has a very high acceptance rate, i.e. they publish pretty much anything that passes peer review.
Traditional paper-bound journals are intrinsically limited re: number of articles that can be published. OTOH online publications aren't so restricted, so why not publish all that are worthy?
I think the real question is the quality of peer review. A "high rate of acceptance" isn't bad if accepting an article happens only after good quality peer review. But a high rate of acceptance without adequate peer review would be a big source of concern.
Not sure which of these publishing considerations applies to this article. I'll have to go over it again in detail when I'm more rested, anyway on quick overview I didn't spot any glaring problems in it.
Don't know in general but there is another study with the same statement for young people with increased heart problems. Cannot find it, but it is just a few weeks old and I think the country of study was Denmark. Not sure though.
I’m not very knowledgeable about this, but I was wondering if MIT (professor?) co-authorship precludes papers from coming to the wrong conclusions? Or is it we’ll know that when a co-author is from MIT that the paper is as rigorous and objective as possible?
I am just comparing the potential veracity of a peer reviewed article in Nature of two MIT authors and one emergency physician from Ben Gurion University with a one line dismissal and a newspaper link. Which one is "we'll [sic] known" to be more plausible?
I said possibly less reliable because of some interesting data mismatches, not dismissing it. considering then other comments addressing the flaws in their stats, it seems quite wrong.
I have a Masters degree from UBC and work as a data scientist, not that actually matters…
Please follow HN guidelines when responding, you could have simply stated, "Looking at figure 1b, it seems like there was time delay between the first dose and the increase in rates".
This is a wrong venue to condescendingly teach other people how to write comments. The goal of this forum is to contribute information or insights. If you you think I violated HN guidelines, please downvote and report to dang.
I guess many anti-vax people confirmation-biased this article and are tweeting about it, and if I can guess, you're pro-vax and your confirmation bias is skeptical about it (if it was an article that touted how good the vaccines are, you'de be less skeptical about it, and less critical pro-vax minds would be on Twitter saying "See, I was right!").
Actually it isn't really since the scientific community regularly has the problem of ostracising those that offer much progress. It is a decent method in practice but ultimately fallacious. The corpus of published works is far too massive so it is a compromise. A bad one, because the pressure to publish has a negative effect on scientific rigour.
> It is important to note the main limitation of this study, which is that it relies on aggregated data that do not include specific information regarding the affected patients... underlying comorbidities as well as vaccination and COVID-19 positive status
Also from the graphs, while the number of events do seem correlated, there are some peaks that are hard to explain
Meanwhile, Big Pharma is racing to sell millions and millions of vaccines for the <5 year-olds while keeping EUA! They have such a very, very low risk that you have to ask why ($$). Yet, parents have been scared into thinking it's very critical to get their kids vaccinated. I had COVID over a year and a half ago, have traveled a bit, and I have not had it once. At work, double-vaccinated and boosted co-workers have had it once or twice. I am over 55, but not obese, or diabetic, and my COVID bout was like the flu or less. If I had to get vaccinated to support my family, or travel for work, I would try and get Novavax or J&J, if my doctor approved. It's a crime that countries have adopted mandatory policies on this issue, and don't compare it to chickenpox. If you have natural immunity, nobody says you need the chickenpox vaccine to enter the country. I am sorry, but 1-1/2 years of data is not long enough to convince me of the long-term safety of the mRNA vaccines no matter how many have been vaccinated in the short term. How the word 'safe' can be used so nonchalantly in such a short period of time compared with other vaccines approvals and safety studies is beyond me. Speeding up paperwork does not speed up studies done over the years.
Depends on what you mean by efficacy. It's recently taken on the meaning of "Protection against death and hospitalization" which is not necessarily related to infections. But yeah, UK data going back into last fall consistently shows that vaccinated people over 18 even have a higher case rate (cases / 100000), sometimes as much as 100% more, than unvaccinated.
How would you know that? You aren't guaranteed to get COVID-19 (the symptomatic disease) but you're almost guaranteed to get infected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The majority of Americans already have been, and those that haven't yet will likely get it soon. Many infections are asymptomatic (particularly among the vaccinated) so patients don't necessarily even know whether they've been infected.
If you want to confirm any pre-existing belief you may have, you can find fringe papers to support essentially anything.