It's an interesting report but unfortunately you've not presented the findings, but taken a screen shot out of context. Sigh.
Let's look at the report, and what it really says, eh?
The authors thoughtfully summarize the data, showing how well the three types of vaccines work to prevent different outcomes: 
They thoughtfully define all these terms pretty precisely. The color coding is GREEN for high confidence and TAN for low confidence. (There is a YELLOW for medium confidence, but it's not used.)
High confidence is described as: "evidence from multiple studies which is consistent and comprehensive".
Moving on: they do address the data-points you have presented. Here is what the paper says on this:
The rate of a positive COVID-19 test varies by age and vaccination status. The rate of a positive COVID-19 test is substantially lower in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals up to the age of 29. In individuals aged greater than 30, the rate of a positive COVID-19 test is higher in vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated. This is likely to be due to a variety of reasons, including differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns.
They don't go into exactly what "differences in the population of vaccinated and unvaccinated people as well as differences in testing patterns." means. But it's pretty obvious.
People with health conditions that might contribute to serious Covid outcome or death were particularly targeted for vaccination, and mostly complied. Also people engaged in some activities like cross-border travel: 100% are vaccinated (in many countries it's required now for entry) and they are tested repeatedly. A friend who went to Egypt and Jordan had five tests on the one trip. (I've never had a single Covid test. Many people haven't.)
The authors of the study (the same one you are sighting) go on in the next two paragraphs to point out the facts you keep missing (skipping, in your attempt to sell your false narrative):
The rate of hospitalisation within 28 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to vaccinated individuals. The rate of death within 28 days or within 60 days of a positive COVID-19 test increases with age, and again is substantially greater in unvaccinated individuals compared to fully vaccinated individuals.
Those are pretty key findings.
The authors explain that the data can be misinterpreted, and in fact they address your mistake directly:
In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective.
You presented a part of Table 2. Here is the whole Table, with the attached notes:
But the data continues, the table you have fixated on shows people who have tested positive. What happens to those people? Well Table 3 tells us:
Simply put vaccinated people are far less likely to end up in the hospital.
And, finally we get to the all important "deaths" category:
WOW! In the all important 60-69 age group (important to me!) you are 5X more likely to die if you test positive and are unvaxxed, according to this study!
Here is the link to the report, which is only about 25 pages and anyone interested can see what it really says.
COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report Week 42
So the question I normally would have when someone so completely misrepresents something is: are they legitimately confused, maybe because they aren't very bright, or don't understand statistics? Or, are they deliberately misinterpreting and cherry-picking to advance an agenda?
But in your case, we don't have to wonder. You are a very well known figure here, having hosted the Endless Q Thread since inception.
What we can say for sure about your Merry Band of Q-believers: never in FR history has a group of people been so wrong, for so long, and so adamantly refused to admit it. And, you are the den mother for it all!
"Trust Sessions, Trust Huber, US Marshalls Roundup, Flights to GITMO, Military Tribunals, Trust The Plan, Trump back in office in February, March, 4th of July, September ..."
It's unfortunate that you are now extending your "analytical skills" to Covid. With the same results. Oh well.
It's an interesting report but unfortunately you've not presented the findings, but taken a screen shot out of context. Sigh.Before you composed your response blaming me for the article, you had one job: Figure out who presented to content, screen shots etc. *sigh*
But if you acknowledged that Craig Kelly MP chose the screen shot you wouldn't be able to use misdirection as a compass to keep guiding you back to your baseless insults.
Job #2 was to acknowledge that Telegram/Twitter/Gab use a short format to get the conversation going and attach a PDF to provide context for the reader. Again, another fail on your part.
The authors of the study (the same one you are sighting) go on in the next two paragraphs ....
Hey you 'missed' the correct spelling of 'citing'.
....to point out the facts you keep missing (skipping, in your attempt to sell your false narrative):
So quoting Australian MP Craig Kelly means I 'keep missing facts', 'skipping them to sell my false narrative? Agenda much? Why should I bother reading your post when you are engaging in schoolyard-level taunting?
The authors explain that the data can be misinterpreted, and in fact they address your mistake directly:
"In the context of very high vaccine coverage in the population, even with a highly effective vaccine, it is expected that a large proportion of cases, hospitalisations and deaths would occur in vaccinated individuals, simply because a larger proportion of the population are vaccinated than unvaccinated and no vaccine is 100% effective."
That's called 'maintaining the narrative.' They, and you, are working to maintain the narrative inspite of the data that continues to leak out past the censors. It would be funny in a macabre sort of way if we weren't talking about biowarfare here. You/they are pretending that the rate of doublevax illness SHOULD match the rate of vaxxed in the population. Other readers will understand what I'm saying here.
But the data continues, the table you have fixated on shows people who have tested positive.
Please find out who 'fixated' on 'the table' and if you need to, ask a friend to help you.
Simply put vaccinated people are far less likely to end up in the hospital.
'Narrative'. Say it with me: n-a-r-r-a-t-i-v-e. Try sounding it out while looking in a mirror.
If you think the report is eager to accurately reflect the truth about the "vaccines" ask yourself why over 7 thousand of those ill ages 40 - 49 are 'unlinked' (vaccination status unknown) at a time when you can't travel or access facilities without your vaccination status being known and all hospital admissions are tested upon entry. There are apparently no records for 7000 people - they are just mixed in with other patients so no one knows...No questions asked - here's your hospital gown and turn to your left, down the hall, and pick an open bed.
7K+ unknown vaccination status unknown *eyeroll* are intentionally ignored and the rates per 100,000 are based on a combined total of the approx 2500 people (vaxxed/unvaxxed) who are sick and know vax/unvaxxed. That's no way to handle a Plandemic they like to portray as Ebola, right?
The breakdown of only counting those who are more than 14 days past second dose only as 'vaccinated' is absurd. It's not that immune systems 'boot' from 0 to 100% after the 2nd dose + 14 days. Supposedly immunity is rising upon first vax and THOSE people end up in the hospital where they are counted as unvaccinated.
And, finally we get to the all important "deaths" category:
You haven't been following along so you're unfamiliar with the countless ways death stats are distorted - but let's keep it simple and point out that injections with the 'vaccine' too often kills people, usually within 14 days regardless of whether it's first or second dose.
That's why the 'narrative' stats don't count people as 'vaccinated' until AFTER 14 days post 2nd dose. Table below is from Mortality (openvaers.com)
WOW! In the all important 60-69 age group (important to me!) you are 5X more likely to die if you test positive and are unvaxxed, according to this study!
Wow! When the mandatory vaccine kills you prior to 14+ days post 2nd dose, your death is counted as 'unvaccinated' and used to make the clot shots look protective!
Here is the link to the report, which is only about 25 pages and anyone interested can see what it really says.
It's linked in the Telegram post and linked in the Free Republic post and you're still pretending the table was presented out of context? If Telegram doesn't post the 25 page report the rest of of are deceptive liars with an agenda?
So the question I normally would have when someone so completely misrepresents something is: are they legitimately confused, maybe because they aren't very bright, or don't understand statistics? Or, are they deliberately misinterpreting and cherry-picking to advance an agenda?
I think you are advancing an agenda by cherry picking the data and the way you did it was not very bright.
But in your case, we don't have to wonder. You are a very well known figure here, having hosted the Endless Q Thread since inception.
Irrelevant ad-hominem attack? You're on your home turf now, aren't you?
What we can say for sure about your Merry Band of Q-believers: never in FR history has a group of people been so wrong, for so long, and so adamantly refused to admit it. And, you are the den mother for it all!
"Trust Sessions, Trust Huber, US Marshalls Roundup, Flights to GITMO, Military Tribunals, Trust The Plan, Trump back in office in February, March, 4th of July, September ..."
What 'we' can say? There's your 'everybody thinks so!' technique from 5th grade again.
You just beclowned yourself and you're proud of it. Is there anyone with less self-awareness than you posting on FR right now? Maybe there's one among the lurkers? Nah, can't be. Lurkers are pretty savvy.
It's unfortunate that you are now extending your "analytical skills" to Covid. With the same results. Oh well.
I'm grateful to God for the opportunity to contribute my analytical skills to help work through 'the narrative' and propaganda re Q and Covid that you and yours push. I'm also grateful for the opportunities He has given me to encourage my peers and pray with them, whether or not we agree in political or other ideology.
You are welcome to join us in prayer at 3:15 EST every day. Those who choose to pray for at least a minute are with us at 3:16, in honor of John 3:16.
I trust God and value His opinion of what I do and how I spend my time, so your opinion doesn't matter to me. Oh well.