I'm skipping through because its too late now, and buzzy day tomorrow, but the main problem in the tables 2-4 of the HSA study is the mix up of positive tests with cases. It seems the vaxx leads to many false positives.Ok - processing this some more. Here's a screenshot from the Thomas Renz/Mike Adams vid:
The fourth data point down says, "Prior COVID-19 infection has a major protective effect against breakthrough hospitalization."
Now, according to Mike and Tom, "breakthrough" equates to "vaccine failure". IOW, one has to be vaccinated in order to experience a vaccine failure/breakthrough. So, recovered COVID persons get vaxxed and their "vaccine failure" that results in hospitalization appears to be less than the other statistical categories noting that the entire group consists of vaxxed 65 & over people. Perhaps the former asserted data that getting vaxxed after already having had COVID results in worst adverse effects applies more to the under 65 people? It all gets even more schizoid when it's been opined that there really isn't any Delta, but that 'Delta' is really ADE.
Looking at that last data point in the graphic above, is the reason the hospitalization/death rate of breakthroughs is lower than the rates in the pre-vaccinated phase the result of the vaxxed receiving Ivermectin as is being speculated - whereas the unvaxxed are getting Remdisivir/ventilators? That could also apply to the other data point in the previous paragraph.
Oh what a wicked web we weave, when we first practice to deceive.
So then the outcome for the vaxx seems positive in terms of less severe illness per 100k 'cases' compared to unvaxxed.
Think they know this and use less cycles in the PCR test with vaxxed than with unvaxxed, not sure also in UK.