Over a 7 day period, no relationship between vaccination rates and infections in 68 countries and the US, is what it says.
Why only seven days? Why just 69 countries?
Most Glaring Problem: The study excludes health data from many major western countries such a Switzerland, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, Finland, the UK, France and Germany, among other countries, with arguably the most accurate and readily available data, without explanation, but includes "data" from India, Somalia, North Macedonia, Mali, Libya, Angola, Djibouti and Sao Tome and Principe, among many others, countries known to have extremely poor and grossly inaccurate data due to extreme poverty and/or civil war. Bottom line: they cherry picked data and are blowing smoke up your, and other anti-vaxxers', gullible arses with it.
Problem: a 7 day period is the way too short for meaningful extrapolation on a longitudinal basis. They chose 7 days because? No explanation given! Were they too busy to consider more data over a longer period? Selective time periods are a common means of cherry picking data, This week's data supports my hypothesis, this week's data doesn't. I'll chose the week that does, and ignore the week that doesn't.
Because vaccines are not 100% effective in preventing disease and because a percentage of people are unvaccinated, if you have a major outbreak of the virus the infection rate will go up due to prevalence in a community, Israel. Likewise, after the virus has ravaged communities, the prevalence will then fall, based on developed immunity and because death all around is a strong motivator to get vaccinated, Mississippi. Problem: the study assumes a constant prevalence on a week over week period. Numbers actually show a current downward prevalence, and there hasn't been a constant with Covid.
Finally, it is an outlier, inconsistent with multiple other studies, and the conclusions of v
irtual every national health association on the planet.
A WSU education is a great great thing!