Dr Makary evidently cannot read data to save his, or other persons’ lives. He also seems to either lack the ability to understand probabilities and odds rations, or he is just another attention-seeking celebrity wannabe, who is knowingly misleading the public, just to be interviewed.
Oh, he is a surgeon, NOT a virologist or an immunobiologist. He probably has not learned any more than introductory courses in either, and those were from 20 years ago. He should keep to what he knows - cutting people open, and putting them back together again.
The calculations that he is quoting are, again, the result of some idiot’s inability to calculate odd ratios.
Basically, they calculated the percentage of recovered people who were reinfected and compared that to the percentage of vaccinated people who had breakthrough infections.
The problem is that this is not how you calculated the chances of infection.
First, there were 6.21 times as many vaccinated people as there were recovered people. That means that vaccinated people were already 6.21 times more likely to be exposed to a contagious individual.
So that already explains why vaccinated people were 6.7 times more likely to be infected than recovered people.
Second, many of the recovered people were also vaccinated, so we’re not actually talking about there being 835,000 people who were immune only because of having been sick - many of them were vaccinated too. So the number of those who were just recovered is low.
Finally, this model is based on the false assumption that everybody in Israel is equally exposed, and that vaccinated and recovered people are randomly and normally distributed in the population.
They are not.
In fact, the recovered are highly clumped in the ultraorthodox community. As of the data on which Dr Makary is basing his claims, the Delta variant had not yet started to spread in this community.
That means that the actual proportion of recovered, unvaccinated people who had been exposed to the Delta variant was far lower than 8.7%, which is their percent of the population.
That means that, not only does he not understand what he’s talking about, he is also citing people who do not know the basics of epidemiology.
He also does not, evidently, actually read research on the topic: