The vaccinated folks are mostly old people and people with comorbidities, and the unvaccinated are mostly young and healthy people, so you're not comparing like for like.

Best case, the Pfizer vaccine is 95% effective at preventing serious illness and death. This has been known since the beginning.

If you vaccinate 100% of the total population, you'll find that 100% of hospitalised and dead patients have been fully vaccinated.

TL;DR: This is only concerning if one doesn't properly grasp statistics. Most of us (self included) fail at this.

I do properly grasp statistics, and your conclusion is unwarranted. If 79% of people are vaccinated, then if hypothetically 79% of the hospitalized people were vaccinated, it would mean the vaccine had absolutely 0% effectiveness.

The fact that only 60% of the hospitalized are vaccinated means the vaccine is more effective than nothing (and the data on death is even better), but as time goes on it becomes clearer the vaccines are not the silver bullet many of us thought they would be.

> If 79% of people are vaccinated, then if hypothetically 79% of the hospitalized people were vaccinated, it would mean the vaccine had absolutely 0% effectiveness.

Incorrect. The vaccinations are targeted at the most vulnerable not distributed uniformly so this is not exactly right.

Just to be clear, I agree with your point that there is a difference in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated population (e.g. average age).

But when you say "targeted" at the most vulnerable, I'm not sure how true that is. There's a pretty big push to get everyone vaccinated, including populations that have been reluctant to get vaccinated until now.

You're misrepresenting the situation. As the article says, only 58% of the population is vaccinated. Only 78.8% of the eligible population is vaccinated.