There are some flaws in the assertions and conclusion! They were taking only raw numerical data without context.
At the time that they started with the vaccination, the infection rate in Israel was very high, so even from those who got the vaccine (and most of them had already preexisting conditions) some died, which most likely would have died anyway, but they included those deaths as caused by vaccination which is not really reliable!
In order for this data to be valid they would have had to take to separate groups in a neutral settings and follow them.
The conclusion is a great exaggeration!
* If the conclusion would have been true, then there would have been many more deaths. But in Israel they continued to vaccinate the people with 4.5 million more vaccination beyond the first million mentioned in the article, and the number of deaths dropped to zero!!!
If the conclusion of the article was true then there would have been increase in the number of deaths after vaccination. But the result was the opposite (since mid-April the daily number of deaths was a single digit with large intervals of no deaths at all!).
In order for this data to be valid they would have had to take to separate groups in a neutral settings and follow them.
The conclusion is a great exaggeration!
* If the conclusion would have been true, then there would have been many more deaths. But in Israel they continued to vaccinate the people with 4.5 million more vaccination beyond the first million mentioned in the article, and the number of deaths dropped to zero!!! If the conclusion of the article was true then there would have been increase in the number of deaths after vaccination. But the result was the opposite (since mid-April the daily number of deaths was a single digit with large intervals of no deaths at all!).