Yes, as explained in the letter, NIMS overestimates the number of people who are unvaccinated (because it overestimates the population). That means infection rates (and hospitalisations and deaths) per 100,000 for the unvaccinated will be underestimated. The estimate of the rates for vaccinated people is likely to be much more accurate (since counting vaccinated people isn't so hard).
There were complaints about this (last year) but they persist in giving the data (just with the footnote). I presume they have their reasons, but it's just not useful except to mislead (and people do use it for that).
Ok. Est population is 67million (Apparently based on people registered with a GP).
These are the latest figures (figures in both columns are unadjusted). For those over 18, it appears that those vaccinated have 3 times as many cases as those un-vaccinated. However, in reality, given the infectiousness of sars-cov-2 and the duration, most people will be vaccinated be it through infection or jab. Given it is well established natural infection confers better, wider and longer lasting immunity the table shows this.
Could those shown in the non-vaccinated column be the remaining people who have just caught covid given the wide scale studies found those already infected (vaccinated) failed to test positive again?
Cases between week 6 and 9
Age Group------Vaccinated (jabbed)-------Not Vaccinated
under 18--------894-----------------------------1062.9
18-29 -----------2178.2-------------------------722.4
30-39------------2501.5-------------------------723.4
40-49------------2241.8-------------------------642.5
50-59------------1703.4-------------------------496.8
60-69------------1340.6-------------------------370.7
70-79------------972.8------------------------- 356.2
80 and +--------1055.5-------------------------549.0