Basically, this report is pure crap with the intent to deceive. It’s NOT helpful.
Let's try to do this from the report and see what we get. First, vaccine rates aren't as high as you said. From the report:
Vaccine coverage tells us about the proportion of the population that have received 1 and 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines. By 31 October 2021, the overall vaccine uptake in England for dose 1 was 66.4% and for dose 2 was 60.9%. In line with the programme rollout, coverage is highest in the oldest age groups.
---------------------
Scale Up: It can be hard to see a vaccine’s impact in terms of percentages. Let’s answer the same questions as above after calculating what the infection risks indicated by Pfizer’s study would look like if applied to the entire population of the United States.
Answer the following questions (and fill in the corresponding table cells):
About 328 million (328,000,000) people live in the United States. Assume all of these people had the same infection risk as those in the placebo group during the months of this study. How many people in the country would you expect to contract the coronavirus? Hint: Multiply the U.S. population by the infection risk (before multiplying, write the infection risk as a decimal: 0.74% = 0.0074).
Assume the U.S. population had the same infection risk as the vaccine group. How many people would you expect to become infected?
Put these numbers in the appropriate places of the table’s final column.
--------------------
OK, so the article calculates the infection risk for the time period of the study for a potential vaccinated population and expects only 131,200 cases among the vaxed if the entire population were vaccinated vs 2,427,200 cases if the entire population weren't vaxed.
We obviously aren't seeing that kind of efficacy against infection, right? Something is wrong.
Although it is hard to find anywhere in the study what the denominator is, Worldometer lists the UK population at slightly less than 68 million. Let's use that.
Now assuming that 4 weeks is a sufficient study time frame, and using the New York Times "lesson" to understand just how wonderful the Pfizer vaccine's efficacy against injection is (95% vaccine effectiveness), let's do the math:
How many vaccinated people might have we expected to be infected if the vaccine efficacy against infection is 95%?
First, let's get the population of vaccinated people. I posted before that the vaccination rate is about 60.9% of the population. So 68,000,000 x .609 = 41,412,000 fully vaccinated people. Or there abouts anyway.
Second, let's apply the 95% vaccine effectiveness against infection to see how many vaccinated people we might have expected to have COVID19. So, 41,412,000 x .0004 = 16,565 cases among the vaccinted.
If the vaccine was 95% effective against infection for the 4 week period of the report, we would have expected 16,565 cases. But the report indicates 439,740 cases? Something doesn't add up.
Let's see if we can "scale up" the rate from the unvaccinated rate of .74. We will use the entire population for this calculation to see what we might have: 68,000,000 x .0074 = 503,200. That seems in the ball park, but low from the real numbers.
But regardless, what can't be denied is that the application of the New York Times "lesson" is complete garbage. The vaccine is not proving to be effective against infection AT ALL. I would have to agree with the article that if you are 18 or over it seems you are more likely to get COVID19 because of vaccination then not. This is crazy.
How about we do it from different source? Here's what the BBC says.
So far, 50 million people have had a first vaccine dose - about 87% of over-12s. More than 45 million - about 79% of over-12s - have had both doses.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55274833
I was a little high.. yes. I was thinking about 'adults' already, not "All population". But, it's still a large % of the population. To be honest with an "effectiveness" calculation, you have to consider the population % of the two groups.