The first part of what you’re saying is what ifs and exceptions to the norm. Of course vaccinated people pass it on, of course they get sick, of course non vaccinated people avoid it… but in the main, across a large part of the population, you’re massively less likely to get severely ill and die if you’re double jabbed and with the chances of passing it on being 30% less, if you’re jabbed, it makes a huge difference over a population.I actually referred to data among the people in my workplace who had covid. Does the data mean every single person who had covid in my workplace after being jabbed would definitely have been worse off? Can we really claim that? Because data is spurious. The data for the whole doesn't mean each individual will fall into the same category.
We all also know of loads of people who had covid without vaccinations who suffered relatively mild symptoms. But the data on a whole won't highlight this.
And yes, less likely, according to data, but just using this one example: if we took the data it would show a zero rate of infection pre vaccination. And one of around 50 percent post. So that data would conclude that vaccinations make it more likely for the virus to spread, in this instance. But we don't conclude this because we know that's not likely (unless maybe we consider the possibility that the vaccinated staff were less likely to social distance, wear masks, sanitise their hands etc) and because data is, like I said, spurious.
Even though you didn't mean to be rude, as data would suggest from your input, you still appeared to be.
Why do you think we’re having days with under 200 deaths still, when we have 60k/70k/80k daily cases??
When we had 50k daily cases this time 11 months ago whilst in lockdown, there were nearly 1000 people dying every day.