At least they explain their method so you can point to the obvious flaws I already highlighted before. They do not consider the conditions related to the spread.
All they are showing is that places with high vaccination rates, that have also listen social restrictions, have the expected increase in infection rates.
They ignore the influence of lockdowns and social restrictions in the data, and the comparability of those restrictions with vaccine efficacy. Their method is flawed.
Look into any scientific endeavour and you will see argument and disagreement. You then try to use that to support your own conclusions which are not supported even by your link.
This shows the vaccine is of anything slightly less effective than total lockdowns. Not that the vaccines are ineffective. Do you have anything that supports your conclusions?
