Vaccine Effectiveness against Omicron. Credit: MedRxiv.org screenshot
Posted on 12/25/2021 7:17:49 PM PST by SeekAndFind
With the spread of Omicron for the last couple of months, members of the Branch Covidian Cult have been freebasing their latest fix for panic, fed to them by their dealers and the other members of the fear cartel. As they froth at the mouth, demanding that we partake of their mind-altering drug-of-choice, their monotonal chant drones on, demanding we “follow the science” and “trust the scientists” absent a single study supporting their fear, without identifying a single scientist whom we should trust, and, more importantly, why we should trust them. Fauci has become a meme of himself in recent months (and especially over the last seven days), as the claims he’s made regarding the virus and its origins have proven to be anything from laughably ridiculous to dangerously misleading.
Oftentimes, the decree from the cultists to “follow the science” means to only follow the “science” they’ve been fed by people who claim to be the science and not the totality of the science, as we at RedState have pointed out time and time again. The initial CDC mask study only showed a 1.32% advantage to mask mandates, within the margin of error for that data set, meaning that suggesting that mask mandates work or that the data suggests they do is, at the very least, unsupported by that same data. When I have previously compared the data between states or countries that have mask mandates to states and countries that don’t have those same mandates, it showed that mandates have had no effect in slowing or stopping infections, hospitalizations, and deaths. Yet, the cultists continue their chants, alleging that those questioning their data are in fact, conspiracy theorists and that they are peddling dangerous misinformation.
When Omicron began its initial spread, I was quick to analyze the data coming out of South Africa because I was less worried about that same data being fudged by our government before we had access to it. I found that the data showed that while Omicron is certainly more transmissible than previous variants, it certainly was much less severe and deadly than previous variants including Delta. Nearly a month ago (November 29th), I stated that the data coming out of South Africa provided “factual rejections of [the] COVID vaccine effectiveness narrative,” as the majority of early cases were found in the vaccinated despite the fact those same people represent a minority of the population.
In South Africa, nearly every early case of Omicron was in fully vaccinated people, despite only 23.8% of the population being vaccinated at the time. While that data would suggest that vaccinated people are more likely to be infected with Omicron than the unvaccinated, I stopped short of saying that because it was still very early in the spread of Omicron and the data could change. What was clear, though, was that South Africa was in the midst of an outbreak of a new and more transmissible variant.
Again on December 13th, I tackled this myth that Omicron was going to make it worse in the US, by updating that data out of South Africa, this time showing that there was even more data to suggest that not only was Omicron nowhere near as severe as the fear-nibarbital consuming cultists want you to believe. With an astounding 1100% increase in cases, South Africa only had an 8.32% increase in deaths. Again, at the time, South Africa’s vaccination rate was below 25%. Meanwhile, the United States, with more than double the vaccination rate of South Africa, has nearly twice the new caseload and five times the rate of death from COVID than that of South Africa. That data would suggest that being vaccinated makes you more likely to be infected with Omicron than being unvaccinated.
Making such a bold claim was something I still held short of actually doing as I feared earning the undeserved eye of social media fact-checkers, who could ban the link or label it as misinformation. It wouldn’t be the first time a vaccine has made the situation worse either, as admitted by Anthony Fauci early in the pandemic. As I reported December 15th, Fauci said during a Facebook Live event with Mark Zuckerberg in March 2020 that vaccine development must include the potential that vaccines could make people worse. While I had my suspicions that the vaccine may actually make you more likely to be infected with Omicron than being unvaccinated, I was careful to make sure that I made clear I wasn’t specifically stating that.
“Yet, while I claim that the vaccine lacks the efficacy they suggest it has, I have never said that the vaccines could make it more likely that you’re infected with COVID-19.”
Fauci went on to state that vaccines which he supervised the development of, “actually made individuals more likely to get infected.”
Now, data from a new study suggests negative effectiveness, that is the very thing Fauci warned as a potential: a higher likelihood of being infected with Omicron than if you had simply been unvaccinated, 90 days after being vaccinated. The study, entitled “Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study,” shows that both mRNA vaccines maintained a better than 50% effectiveness against previous variants of COVID-19, that effectiveness drops to nearly zero 60 days after the vaccine is administered and actually provides a negative response after 90 days. In fact, initial vaccine efficacy against Omicron for both vaccines tested was below that of the effectiveness against Delta after more than 90 days.
Vaccine Effectiveness against Omicron. Credit: MedRxiv.org screenshot
When factoring for the confidence interval, both vaccines show a potential of causing negative effectiveness after 30 days, and the data show that only the Pfizer vaccine has results that indicate a positive effect for the first thirty days. Moderna’s vaccine consistently shows the potential of cause in negative results, that is, a higher likelihood of infection, from the date of vaccination forward.
What this tells us is what the data have been telling us all along: That the vaccines provide no protection against Omicron, and can even make it more likely for you to be infected with the virus. While boosters may reduce that threat, it would only be for 30 days before that boost faded and the probability of being infected would return to that of the unvaccinated, or higher.
I am sure that we won’t hear about this study in the mainstream media, and the Biden Administration won’t be using this science to form their policy decisions.
Population reduction is an important part of life. /s
It is absolutely horrible that our government has provided no guidance or steps to take when someone is initially diagnosed with Covid. It’s almost as if they want you to get very sick.
I believe this is INTENTIONAL. With all the lies they’ve told about COVID in the last two years, and the desperation of the elite to use COVID to bring about their tyrannical goals, I wouldn’t put it past them.
Did anyone actually read the article? It says nothing of the sort.
Unbelievable.
The conclusion was that vaccine effectiveness goes down -50% over a couple months in regards to Omicrom compared to previous variants.
This non peered reviewed study says nothing at all about vaccinated people having a higher rate of infection than non vaccinated.
This post does state higher probability than if unvaxed after 90 days. Is this article interpretation of the study wrong?
Similar thread:
Study Shows That After Three Months The Vaccine Effectiveness Of Pfizer & Moderna Against Omicron Is Actually Negative
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4024226/posts
Good. I was vaxxed in March and April, and now I can finally get the Omicron variant and get a real immunity. Hurray!
Excellent corrected analysis of the Danish data involving negative vaccine efficacy that is being so widely discussed.https://t.co/lA1b46C85U pic.twitter.com/9NwLiX6IjF— Robert W Malone, MD (@RWMaloneMD) December 25, 2021
I did read it, and agree. You will see that fairly often here.
Studies interpreted by lay people just conveniently are antivax.
Our study contributes to emerging evidence that BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 primary vaccine protection against Omicron decreases quickly over time with booster vaccination offering a significant increase in protection. In light of the exponential rise in Omicron cases, these findings highlight the need for massive rollout of vaccinations and booster vaccinations.
So..."The Jim Jones Jab does not prevent you from getting sick with COVID-1984 Omicron so you should take the Jim Jones Jab because of COVID-1984 Omicron."
Only a Branch Covidian would follow that thinking.
Yes, the interpretation of the actual article is completely incorrect and blatantly misleading.
As far as peer reviewed studies are concerned, most authors won’t submit anything that could interfere with their future grants. Funding comes from the government.
The bottom line is that we’re going to have to rely on all cause age adjusted mortality studies of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. This will take some time for definitive results. You can’t manipulate age, death or vaccination date (unless you’re making “vaccinated” to mean 2 weeks post injection) But even then, you can usually determine the date when a person actually received the injection. That would be the best way to assess risk v benefit.
As far as I can determine there MAY be a short term benefit of a few months from the vaccine for the elderly that’s it. That said, the longer term risks are unknown. In other groups I think it’s clear that the risks outweigh benefits.
The other thing we should be doing is looking closely at unvaccinated recovered vs unvaccinated never ill.
It’s also clear that early aggressive treatment has been actively discouraged by government agencies and the reasons are self evident- promotion of vaccine makers and justification for more government control.
"That the vaccines provide no protection against Omicron, and can even make it more likely for you to be infected with the virus. While boosters may reduce that threat, it would only be for 30 days before that boost faded and the probability of being infected would return to that of the unvaccinated, or higher."
idk-the footnotes they published said the negative numbers were inverted and meant to be positive??? I believe this is the abstract: either way-goofy those Danes
In this brief communication we are showing original research results with early estimates from Danish nationwide databases of vaccine effectiveness (VE) against the novel SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) up to five months after a primary vaccination series with the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines.
Our study provides evidence of protection against infection with the Omicron variant after completion of a primary vaccination series with the BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines; in particular, we found a VE against the Omicron variant of 55.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 23.5 to 73.7%) and 36.7% (95% CI: 69.9 to 76.4%) for the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines, respectively, in the first month after primary vaccination.
However, the VE is significantly lower than that against Delta infection and declines rapidly over just a few months. The VE is re-established upon revaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine (54.6%, 95% CI: 30.4 to 70.4%).
Good news for you then. You can now have an excuse to get vaxxed every 3 months
-PJ
While boosters may reduce that threat, it would only be for 30 days before that boost faded and the probability of being infected would return to that of the unvaccinated, or higher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.