And it's the wrong data anyway, it's like looking down the wrong end of a telescope.To be honest the fact that it's the Guardian (awful rag though it is!) isn't the issue. We discussed this the other day; the claims made aren't supported by the data. A different doctor/scientist/other "expert" repeating the same thing doesn't make it true.
What matters to me, and to the vast majority of people I believe, is the likelihood of my being required to be in the ICU because of Covid when I have had three vaccinations to date.
The fact that some people who have received three vaccinations will be in hospital ICUs is unfortunate for them but mainly irrelevant to me. Many others have already observed this here. With increasing numbers of people being vaccinated, some of them will unfortunately end up in hospital still.
The figure that matters to me is my likelihood of doing so, and I believe the data supports my feeling that my likelihood is significantly lowered because of my vaccinations.
But what's happening in hospitals is largely irrelevant to this, other than it being circumstantial evidence and to be expected if my understanding of the science is correct.
EDIT Looking down the telescope in the proper direction
1. If 90% of people are vaccinated and the vaccination is 90% effective against hospitalisation, then a typical hospital would expect to see roughly equal numbers of unvaccinated patients as vaccinated ones.
2. If 70% of people are vaccinated and the vaccination is 95% effective against hospitalisation, then a typical hospital would expect to see roughly eight times the number of unvaccinated patients as vaccinated ones.
But it's only valid to generalise in the opposite direction if the one specific hospital in the article can be shown to be typical of all hospitals, which it may or may not be.