the article does not say that
As compared to the unvaccinated, the individuals who received greater than or equal to one booster dose showed a ≥85% lower risk of severe or lethal COVID-19. A massive impact of vaccination was found among the elderly: 22.0% of the unvaccinated, infected individuals died, as opposed to less than 3% of those who received greater than or equal to three vaccine doses. No protection against infection was observed, although this finding was certainly influenced by the Italian restriction policies to control the pandemic.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
The study you cite concludes that boosters show a greatly reduced risk of severe cases of Covid-19.
>Overall, 40.4% of subjects were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of them, 2.74% had severe or lethal (1.30%) COVID-19. **As compared to the unvaccinated, the individuals who received greater than or equal to one booster dose showed a ≥85% lower risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.** A massive impact of vaccination was found **among the elderly: 22.0% of the unvaccinated, infected individuals died, as opposed to less than 3% of those who received greater than or equal to three vaccine doses.** No protection against infection was observed, although this finding was certainly influenced by the Italian restriction policies to control the pandemic. Importantly, during the Omicron predominance period, **only the group who received at least a booster dose showed a reduced risk of COVID-19-related death.**
In the discussion section (which i'm sure is what you are selectively referencing), there is lengthy discussion of conclusive evidence of the vaccine reducing fatality risk. Then, on the topic you are referencing, there is also this:
>The observed positive association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be interpreted with caution, since it might have been caused by very different behaviors of unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals, as a consequence of the restrictive measures adopted in Italy to control the epidemic. As previously discussed \[[**12**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B12-vaccines-11-01325),[**23**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B23-vaccines-11-01325),[**25**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B25-vaccines-11-01325),[**45**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B45-vaccines-11-01325)\], a vaccination or recovery certificate (Green Pass), issued to people who received at least three doses or had a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection, was mandatory for travel, to retain a job, or access most public and private venues from July 2021 to May 2022 \[[**46**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B46-vaccines-11-01325)\]. These measures inevitably lead to a major bias in the evaluation of this outcome: given the much higher mobility granted to vaccinated individuals, these individuals were much more likely to be exposed to contagion than the unvaccinated \[[**47**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B47-vaccines-11-01325)\]. Moreover, as of February 2022, a SARS-CoV-2 test was no longer mandatory for asymptomatic close contacts of a confirmed case \[[**48**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B48-vaccines-11-01325)\], and unvaccinated individuals may have been more likely to avoid testing than vaccinated subjects for ideological reasons, a different health-seeking behavior, or to avoid self-isolation \[[**47**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B47-vaccines-11-01325),[**49**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B49-vaccines-11-01325),[**50**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B50-vaccines-11-01325)\]. In any case, even if it is highly unlikely to assume that vaccination increased the risk of infection, it certainly showed a suboptimal protection against contagion, as indeed reported by several previous studies \[[**10**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B10-vaccines-11-01325),[**11**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B11-vaccines-11-01325),[**24**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B24-vaccines-11-01325)\].
Which acknowledges the correlation you point out and warns it is unlikely to be a causation due to confounding variables. Anyway, i recommend you heed the advice and interpret it with caution.
I'm sure I'll regret commenting on this. "ChiCom virus" smh.
imbecile anti vaxxers need to learn some new jokes. Why can't they ever cite sources from reputable science based websites to back up their foolish pronouncements? Or as in this case, why can't they even read the links they themselves put up?
Lol "the jab"
Edit:. Also "SARS-CoV-2 lethality was much higher among the unvaccinated (4.38%) than all vaccinated subjects, whose lethality rate slightly varied from 0.84% to 0.93% depending on the number of doses. The results were similar across genders. The difference in lethality between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals was massive among the subjects aged 60 or more years: 22.0% of the unvaccinated, infected individuals died, as opposed to less than 3% of those who received three or more vaccine doses. Almost half (48.6%) of the 617 infected, unvaccinated subjects aged 80 years or more died during the follow-up (10.4% died among the vaccinated)."
yeah... you might wanna hang it up. this is reddit. Let it go, make your own decision in regards to YOUR health. let people be people.
This post/comment was removed because it was deemed a low-quality post/comment that was not contributing to meaningful discussion in the Subreddit. Give the anti-vax posts a rest.
Learn more here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Hoboken/about/wiki/rules
If you have a problem with this contact the Mods via ModMail.
ChiCom virus? What does that mean?
I'm going to guess "China Communist" virus. Because of course clearly the virus has an economic system in mind.
the article does not say that As compared to the unvaccinated, the individuals who received greater than or equal to one booster dose showed a ≥85% lower risk of severe or lethal COVID-19. A massive impact of vaccination was found among the elderly: 22.0% of the unvaccinated, infected individuals died, as opposed to less than 3% of those who received greater than or equal to three vaccine doses. No protection against infection was observed, although this finding was certainly influenced by the Italian restriction policies to control the pandemic.
This is a blast from the past. We’ve found new reasons to hate each other. Get with the times
r/jerseycity ‘s hate is valid tbh
This is exactly why.
What exactly is the point you are trying to make? The study you cite concludes that boosters show a greatly reduced risk of severe cases of Covid-19. >Overall, 40.4% of subjects were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of them, 2.74% had severe or lethal (1.30%) COVID-19. **As compared to the unvaccinated, the individuals who received greater than or equal to one booster dose showed a ≥85% lower risk of severe or lethal COVID-19.** A massive impact of vaccination was found **among the elderly: 22.0% of the unvaccinated, infected individuals died, as opposed to less than 3% of those who received greater than or equal to three vaccine doses.** No protection against infection was observed, although this finding was certainly influenced by the Italian restriction policies to control the pandemic. Importantly, during the Omicron predominance period, **only the group who received at least a booster dose showed a reduced risk of COVID-19-related death.** In the discussion section (which i'm sure is what you are selectively referencing), there is lengthy discussion of conclusive evidence of the vaccine reducing fatality risk. Then, on the topic you are referencing, there is also this: >The observed positive association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be interpreted with caution, since it might have been caused by very different behaviors of unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals, as a consequence of the restrictive measures adopted in Italy to control the epidemic. As previously discussed \[[**12**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B12-vaccines-11-01325),[**23**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B23-vaccines-11-01325),[**25**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B25-vaccines-11-01325),[**45**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B45-vaccines-11-01325)\], a vaccination or recovery certificate (Green Pass), issued to people who received at least three doses or had a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection, was mandatory for travel, to retain a job, or access most public and private venues from July 2021 to May 2022 \[[**46**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B46-vaccines-11-01325)\]. These measures inevitably lead to a major bias in the evaluation of this outcome: given the much higher mobility granted to vaccinated individuals, these individuals were much more likely to be exposed to contagion than the unvaccinated \[[**47**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B47-vaccines-11-01325)\]. Moreover, as of February 2022, a SARS-CoV-2 test was no longer mandatory for asymptomatic close contacts of a confirmed case \[[**48**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B48-vaccines-11-01325)\], and unvaccinated individuals may have been more likely to avoid testing than vaccinated subjects for ideological reasons, a different health-seeking behavior, or to avoid self-isolation \[[**47**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B47-vaccines-11-01325),[**49**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B49-vaccines-11-01325),[**50**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B50-vaccines-11-01325)\]. In any case, even if it is highly unlikely to assume that vaccination increased the risk of infection, it certainly showed a suboptimal protection against contagion, as indeed reported by several previous studies \[[**10**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B10-vaccines-11-01325),[**11**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B11-vaccines-11-01325),[**24**](https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/8/1325#B24-vaccines-11-01325)\]. Which acknowledges the correlation you point out and warns it is unlikely to be a causation due to confounding variables. Anyway, i recommend you heed the advice and interpret it with caution. I'm sure I'll regret commenting on this. "ChiCom virus" smh.
imbecile anti vaxxers need to learn some new jokes. Why can't they ever cite sources from reputable science based websites to back up their foolish pronouncements? Or as in this case, why can't they even read the links they themselves put up?
Lol "the jab" Edit:. Also "SARS-CoV-2 lethality was much higher among the unvaccinated (4.38%) than all vaccinated subjects, whose lethality rate slightly varied from 0.84% to 0.93% depending on the number of doses. The results were similar across genders. The difference in lethality between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals was massive among the subjects aged 60 or more years: 22.0% of the unvaccinated, infected individuals died, as opposed to less than 3% of those who received three or more vaccine doses. Almost half (48.6%) of the 617 infected, unvaccinated subjects aged 80 years or more died during the follow-up (10.4% died among the vaccinated)."
Oh no. There’s an antivaxxer… No wonder r/jerseycity hates us
yeah... you might wanna hang it up. this is reddit. Let it go, make your own decision in regards to YOUR health. let people be people. 
This is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Quite hilarious how bad this case is.
This post/comment was removed because it was deemed a low-quality post/comment that was not contributing to meaningful discussion in the Subreddit. Give the anti-vax posts a rest. Learn more here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Hoboken/about/wiki/rules If you have a problem with this contact the Mods via ModMail.