But it wasn't only 60+ people who were vaccinated, and you wouldn't be seeing deaths in these numbers if the vaccine worked. If everyone 60+ was vaccinated, and the vaccine worked almost perfectly, you should see basically zero hospitalizations.

If. But it doesn't work perfectly (as I think no vaccine works perfectly). Even if it worked 90%, and 100% of those younger were vaccinated, this is what we would see.

As for natural immunity, considering the vulnerable are still being hospitalized even if they're vaccinated, perhaps they should have taken their chance naturally.

But why? I know it's a meme that "it definitely would have been worse if I hadn't been vaccinated", but if you are old and vulnerable, you'd try to limit your risk as much as possible. If it mitigates your risk, it's worth doing.

I wasn't trying to be specific, it was just an example. Point is, you're not considered vaccinated if you got vaccinated within two weeks, or if your "protection" has worn off. So you could have been jabbed 1, 2, 3, or 4 times, and yet still be considered unvaxxed for statistical purposes. That was my point.

I think that if it is broken down by 0-3, and you got your third one within the past two weeks, you will be noted down as two. It would be pretty strange for all your vaccines to be invalidated for two weeks.

I'm sure that in some jurisdictions, there were shenanigans. But one should not assume that these were necessarily universal. They were not in the documents that I reviewed.

As I said in another comment, compared to other vaccines, this one absolutely is poison. Whether it's as bad as some people fear remains to be seen, but this vaccine is an absolute disaster - and deadly and dangerous - compared to past vaccines.

Should we compare it to 'past vaccines', when those are different diseases, or should we compare it to 'no vaccine' - as that is the actual alternative? There is no such thing as a free lunch. It seems hard for me to justify testing a vaccine for years for ever more remote dangers, as millions of people die from a virus. Vaccines should be approved, or not, based on the amount of harm that they do vs. the amount that they prevent.

I fully get the point regarding long-term risks though. Still, a 90-year-old with a 10%+ chance of dying of Covid will likely want to take it... voluntarily. Is there a justification for denying him the vaccine?