This has been the commonly reported number for quite some time. This paper is literally just repeating a number that's been widely reported for months.
The way its been reported for some time is that vaccines provide moderate reduction in transmissibility, but significant reduction in hospitalization or death (severe infection).
Also wow this is misleading:
> Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage
of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifes 4
of them as “High” Transmission counties. Chattahoochee
(Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto
Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classifed as “High” transmission. Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classifed
as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have
percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.
You can't compare things in this way. When you do it the "right way", you'll see a correlation, weak but extant (much as you see in their diagrams) which contradicts the central claim of the paper.
The way its been reported for some time is that vaccines provide moderate reduction in transmissibility, but significant reduction in hospitalization or death (severe infection).
Also wow this is misleading:
> Of the top 5 counties that have the highest percentage of population fully vaccinated (99.9–84.3%), the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) identifes 4 of them as “High” Transmission counties. Chattahoochee (Georgia), McKinley (New Mexico), and Arecibo (Puerto Rico) counties have above 90% of their population fully vaccinated with all three being classifed as “High” transmission. Conversely, of the 57 counties that have been classifed as “low” transmission counties by the CDC, 26.3% (15) have percentage of population fully vaccinated below 20%.
You can't compare things in this way. When you do it the "right way", you'll see a correlation, weak but extant (much as you see in their diagrams) which contradicts the central claim of the paper.