Actually, I was wrong. I checked the source paper. I believe the labels refer to cohorts from cities that were early in the vaccination campaign vs cohorts from cities that were late in the campaign.
So 0-59 late vaccinated means some vaccines but later in time and fewer in number.
I'm not sure that is true. As I understand it, it's a cohort of people of that age who live in a geographical area of Israel where vaccination was started early. So it includes people of that age who declined the vaccine/didn't get it fr other reasons.
Of course, you're also correct that another important factor is that some of the cohort are not yet fully protected.
Quote:
In order to distill the possible effect of the vaccinations from other factors, including a third lockdown imposed in Israel on January 2021, we compared the time-dependent changes in number of COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations between (1) individuals aged 60 years and older, eligible to receive the vaccine earlier and younger individuals (0-59 years old); (2) early-vaccinated cities compared to late-vaccinated cities; (3) early-vaccinated geographical statistical areas (GSAs) compared to late-vaccinated GSAs;
The chart shows that patients below age 60 have been hospitalized 80% more for severe Covid after vaccination.
Hard to not comment this cynically. That is bad.
Early vaccinated patients over 60 have 40% improvement. Keep in mind that the group older 60 is smaller in size compared to under 60, and the effect is smaller that adverse response in younger. Net negative.
That is hospitalisation in _regions_ where vaccination started early or late.
It does not explicitly discriminate between vaccinated people or non-vaccinated, only possibly by proxy of age.
People under the age of 35 were previously not included in the vaccination scheme.
At the same time, the two more infectious variants are spreading.
Why didn't they use that label then?