“This corresponds to the five months since the onset of the mass vaccination program; a period when vaccines lose their effectiveness.”
they’re not really vaccines if they only last 5 months.
Nor do I think this has been established that the “breakthrough” cases are due to loss of effectiveness.
“As time goes on, more people lose protection from vaccines causing more breakthrough infections.”
Same comment. This is an assumption. I don’t think it’s been established this is the basis for “breakthrough” (I hate that term) cases.
This article is full of logical fallacy.
To determine the effect of the vaccines, you would need to compare rates of infection, hospitalization, and death against the rates found in a similar group of over 65 people who have not been vaccinated. Then you might argue that any increase in rates is due to the vaccine. Until you have done that, there is no grounds for basing any argument on this data set.
Also, the article misleadingly claims a “death rate” of 2.1%. 2.1% of this cohort has not died from the vaccine. 2.1% of the small subset of this cohort who got infected with virus died.
That may seem large as an absolute number, but if I recall correctly, the death rate among elderly wholly unvaccinated people in that age group is much higher. If so, that would suggest the vaccines have in fact had a protective effect.
Easily refutable articles like this one do nothing to aid the cause.