Does that mean 75% of people that are hospitalised specifically due to effects of Coronavirus were unvaccinated?

Or does it mean that 75% of people that were hospitalised for any cause, and that then subsequently tested positive, were found to be unvaccinated?

There's a big difference between the two. It would still be interesting if it were the latter, as that might indicate vaccination was somehow protecting the vaccinated against hospitalisation for causes that weren't immediately identifiable as being related to Coronavirus. I mean, it could be the case that the unvaccinated were suffering cognitive effects of infection that made them more likely to be in car crashes, for example.

> Does that mean 75% of people that are hospitalised specifically due to effects of Coronavirus were unvaccinated?

Yes, it means exactly this.

And the goal of a good vaccination rollout is for 0% of admissions to be non-vaccinated. It seems like NL is doing well.

The more successful the rollout, the more the ratio goes up - this is counterintuitive, but happens because the number of unvaccinated people around that could possibly catch it in the first place becomes comparatively tiny.

I think we might be getting our negatives confused. A perfectly successful rollout sees 100% of people vaccinated, so 100% of admissions are vaccinated, so 0% of admissions are non-vaccinated.

So basically you're saying that wherever hospital admissions are 95% unvaccinated people the vaccine rollout hasn't worked.

No, it’s working but vaccination has not been completed. And, depending on the location, it doesn’t look like it’s going to complete.

Ok, so what you’re saying is vaccine rollout is working if it’s 0% or 100%.

So what’s the failure mode? 50% I guess?

Can’t something just be in process before claiming it’s a success or failure?

From "A => B" does not follow "(not A) => (not B)"

edit: swapped A and B by mistake, see comment below

Hmm, logically speaking, yes, yes it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

Haha, you're right! I mistyped. The left side should have been "(not A) => (not B)"