What I'm saying is that yesterday, Ontario reported 554 new cases; 136 of them were from fully vaccinated individuals. Ergo, 24.5% of cases are coming from vaccinated individuals (and over the past month, it's been pretty consistent at ~20%). COVID hospitalizations ... 162 patients across the province; 28 from fully vaccinated individuals. Ergo, 17% of hospitalizations are coming from fully vaccinated individuals. ICU .... 8/113 are fully vax'd - 7%.*
But those are misleading. Let's say there are 1,000,000 drivers on the road at any given time. Let's say there are 100 drunk drivers on the road any given time. If there are 75 crashes, and 50 are drunk driving accidents, are you saying that we should count that as "33% sober drivers and 66% intoxicated drivers"? That's misleading. Your chances of getting home safety are orders of magnitude better sober than drunk.
Though I don't disagree with you on the general premise of numbers being misleading. There's
this article slamming Tomi Lahren, because she deserves to be slammed because that's the nature of our discourse and she's deplorable, but funny enough, they never ACTUALLY refute her numbers, only keep repeating that they are "misleading" and sticking to the agenda. Lahren IS right, to the extent that it matters, and it's not an inconsequential data point (even if it does potentially lead to bad decision-making for the group).
I'm just saying publishing the stats like NJ does is a convenient way to show some very minuscule percentages. I'd gather the corresponding %s of non-vax'd individuals - while higher - would still be relatively small.
IMO, the more important comparisons is within the population of confirmed cases - not the total population.
Haha, the foot is on the other shoe here, since I would THINK you'd prefer the numbers that encourage those to get vaccinated! Haha. But statistically, I think you're incorrect here. The problem with using the population of confirmed cases to compare vax versus non-vax is that the subset of POTENTIAL cases is not evenly distributed between them. There's a name for this paradox, but I can't remember what it is; I read it in an article only about a week or so ago. See my drunk driving example.
*and as I type this, the former two measurements are higher than the trend over the last month - which is something health officials should be noting and paying attention to. If more and more cases and/or hospitalizations are coming from fully vax'd people, that's a concern. The fact that there's less than a third of a percent to even contract COVID is good news, but doesn't really tell much. And it isn't terribly useful if there's only a 3% chance (I'm making that up) the non-vax population can contract COVID. The percentages are still very low that ANYONE will contract it at any given point in time.
But again, you have to control for all the other variables. As more and more people become vaccinated, you're going to get a broader cross-section of people vaccinated but who are still vulnerable. You're also going to have to account for a re-increase in testing since more and more places are now requiring "negative tests" to use their facilities. It's like autism; you're going to now see more and more people counted as "cases" that wouldn't have been - independent of vax status - even two months ago.
The only things we know FOR SURE at this point is vaccines DO help to reduce the frequency and severity of COVID (the Israeli study I cited a while ago). We're not sure, yet, but we THINK that the Delta variant is more contagious, but there is no evidence that the symptoms are more severe (that's from this morning's New York Times; you can google it). Everything else is some combinatio of educated guesses, dice rolls, and wishful thinking.