@Nanook, surely, you do not expect
the "vaccines" to lower the probability of one's getting the "syndrome"? But the statistics -- as presented -- tell us little about it.
To investigate the correlation of, say, being vaccinated and getting
the syndrome, one should consider the incidence of the vaccinated
in the whole population and then among those with the syndrome.
If the first incidence is greater, then the vaccine would seem
to decrease the probability of getting the syndrome; if the second
incidence is greater, then the vaccine would seem to increase
the probability of getting the syndrome. 80% is approximately
the incidence of the vaccinated in the whole UK population; so
for the deaths the statistics seem to show no clear correlation.
The significantly lower 60% for the hospitalisations may be
presented to mean that (1) the vaccinated are less readily
admitted to hospitals as COVID patients or (2) the unvaccinated
are less likely to die once they get the syndrome than
the vaccinated or something else yet. Anyway, an admission
is probably classified as COVID or something else according
to the result of one of the not very relevant tests rather than
according to the presence or absence of symptoms possibly
caused by many different corona and even non-corona viruses.

Yes, @Nanook, the .pdf at Springer is tighter than
The Exposé page. The "vaccines" do not protect one
from the viruses. Nor have they been shown to make
one more susceptible to the viruses. The question
remains open if the vaccines help the viruses spread.
If this year's seasonal flu surge turns out greater
than the last year's, then the vaccines would be
a prime suspect. One is also tempted to attach
significance to the fact that the study has been
reported in the European Journal of Epidemiology.
Maybe the end of Act II is already in sight
( diasporing.ch/posts/8c13a700ec… ).