If vaxxed you have an increased risk of infection by the variants compared to the original.
If unvaxxed you had no increase risk of infections by the variants compared to the original.
So one group (vaxxed) have an increased risk and the other group (unvaxxed) does not. How is that not an advantage for the unvaxxed?
At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants which is what one would expect given the over specificity of the vax to just the original (alpha) spike protein.
It doesn't show "an increased risk" of infection. It showed that if infected it's more likely to be with a variant. We don't know from this study the overall odds of infection of each group.
If vaxxed you have an increased risk of infection by the variants compared to the original.
If unvaxxed you had no increase risk of infections by the variants compared to the original.
Seems like a win for unvaxxed.
The study didn't compare rush of infection if vaccinated compared to risk of infection if unvaccinated.
So one group (vaxxed) have an increased risk and the other group (unvaxxed) does not. How is that not an advantage for the unvaxxed?
At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants which is what one would expect given the over specificity of the vax to just the original (alpha) spike protein.
It doesn't show "an increased risk" of infection. It showed that if infected it's more likely to be with a variant. We don't know from this study the overall odds of infection of each group.
"At the very least it shows that there is no advantage to being vaxxed for the variants"
Not at all.