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?
I did read it, and agree. You will see that fairly often here.
Studies interpreted by lay people just conveniently are antivax.
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."
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.
Also, the Danish study does not compare severity of infection.
We’ve had nothing but lies from the pro-mRNA-spike-protein-injection side.
Starting with “The vaccine is 95% effective,” etc.
And now the “pandemic of the unvaccinated.” All lies. Such as this:
SCANDAL in Germany Over Scapegoating of Unjabbed
The left-wing Mayor of Hamburg was caught lying to justify discrimination against the unjabbed.
He claimed the unvaccinated represented 95% of COVID cases.
After a Senate investigation, the actual figure was revealed to be 14.3%.
https://summit.news/2021/12/22/scandal-in-germany-over-scapegoating-of-unjabbed/
The article shows a negative absolute VE — not just a negative trend — 3 months after either Pfizer or Moderna vaccines.
What other interpretation is there, other than, with their stated methodology, VE was negative? IOW vaxx’d individuals, were more likely to test positive for covid than un-vaxx’d.