Politics and Money

[lesgetrich]

Your article doesn't prove anything. Note what it says at the beginning...

[color=red]This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice...[/color]

...Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions. Typically, a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as “preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in any way by the scientific or medical community.

The key to the conclusion drawn is in the following phrase...

bringing into question the value of this risk classification definition.

In other words, the CDC definition...

The CDC recently defined being “up-to-date” on COVID-19 vaccination as having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 bivalent vaccine.

May not be useful. Perhaps people need more than one dose of vaccine to get best results. Perhaps some other variable like the amount of elapsed time since the dose was received affected the results. This study is meaningless until it is peer reviewed and the proper conclusions can be drawn.