Post Script
After considering the potential reasons why it appears to make no difference if one is hospitalised (whether injected or not) regarding the outcome, death, a number of potential conclusions appear:
The data is nonsense. This appears less likely because the examined variables ~ hospitalisation and death appear definitive rather than open to interpretation.
Dare I suggest, the obvious?
Assuming the two hospitalised groups Any/All Shots v Nil Shots are reasonably matched (and it seems fair to assume they are), it appears that being in receipt of Any/All Shots confers NO PROTECTION against death in the hospitalised setting when compared with Nil Shots.
The ratios between the two hospitalised groups (Any/All Shots v Nil Shots) has a r value of 0.97 (Pearson co-efficient) with a p value of <0.01, ie. the concordance between the two sets of ratios is nigh on perfect, and for the sake of the approved narrative, a most unexpected finding.
If Any/All Shots demonstrated effectiveness, one would not expect to see a greater number of Any/All Shots in the hospitalised compared with the Nil Shot. Further, for a given numerator (hospitalisations) one would expect a reduced denominator (death) in the Any/All Shots when compared against the corresponding monthly values and derived ratio for Nil Shot. The reality is that there appears to be no difference (see, 2)
The data shows that being in receipt of Any/All Shots results in hospitalisation (ie. severe symptoms ~ positive confounding associated with Any/All Shots) and death at an order of magnitude greater than the hospitalised Nil Shot.
In the hospitalised, Any/All Shots do not appear to alter the probability of death when compared with Nil Shot.
These ratios remain consistent across a six month period of NZ MOH (Feb 2022 - JUL 2022) hospitalisation data. Prior, there were insufficient data to highlight the observations.
These data appear to suggest an absence of evident safety and effectiveness for the Any/All Shot hospitalised.