This one:
This chart in not in the report it claims to come from. The whole "immune system boost or degredation" column terminology is not present in the report. It is (apparently) just stuff the authors of the posted article have made up and put into their article. Which is fine, except they are clearly implying that it's from the report.
It is not. It does not appear anywhere in the report that it claims to be from.
The second chart in the article which has been posted here is this one:
So, you are saying: OK, it's an original chart, but it's based on the data from this other chart, which you gave me the link to.
It might be based on some data from the report, but it's not from the chart you say -- that is, this one:
The chart you linked to (labeled Chart 10 in the report) has the absolute number of Covid cases by age group. So 1,124 under age 18. The graph (that obviously isn't made from that chart) has the rates per 100,000 people. Not the absolute numbers.
You can read the whole report, and it doesn't say at all what the article claims that it does. About once a week we get another article making false claims or spurious claims based on the ongoing UK survey.
You can see the authors have lots of notes, cautions and conclusions, but those are all skipped by the click-bait article authors. It's dry statistics.
In my age group (60-69) the rate of dying within 28 days of a positive covid test for the vaccinated is 10.1 per 100,000. For unvaccinated the rate is 81 per 100,000! WOAH!
If you stretch out the timeline for dying withing 60 days its' still a bad story for the unvaccinated: 6.4 per 100,000 dying among the vaxxed, 40.0 among the unvaxxed!
YOWZA!
If I ended up getting a positive Covid test tomorrow I'd be happy if I were vaxxed. That's what the data says.