This is a short post — but the two studies cited have incredible implications.
Turns out, as was pointed out many times here, that negative effectiveness of vaccines and rapidly waning (and soon going negative) effectiveness of boosters against Omicron, received another and very important scientific confirmation.
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
It turns out that just three months after “primary vaccination”, VE against Omicron turns into very negative territory. Instead of being a protective device, like a life jacket, vaccination instead becomes harmful, like a chain attached to an ankle.
Boosters to the Rescue
The mRNA magic soup does restores “protection”, but in a very odd manner:
the first two weeks past the booster shot give the vaccinee stronly NEGATIVE or at least NO protection (depending on primary series). This is why people who received a booster shot, are not considered “fully boosted” until two weeks pass after the jab. The infections occurring in these first two weeks are not officially counted “against” the booster, overstating effectiveness of this treatment. This is discussed in my article “Boris Johnson's Biggest Blunder”.
Then at two weeks, according to the UK, booster becomes great again, and vaccinees enjoy “protection”, however only amounting to measly 55%. However, booster protection starts declining right away. By just extrapolating the line, booster protection may evaporate after about 17 weeks. (nobody knows exactly when, but you get the idea)
So the boosted have two terrible first weeks, then a few decent weeks, quickly turning into so-so protection, and going to no protection again in 17 weeks, give or take.
If this is not “vaccine failure”, then what is?
it's an insane world when the conclusion of the paper is "therefore more vax/booster is needed"... I suppose this is just setup for the boost every 6 months campaign we are about to go through (like Israel is I suppose)
Here's how I think it's going to go:
1) Booster become mandatory over next few weeks for those cities/states/countries/employers requiring vax passports... if no 3rd shot you are unvaxed (already in force in CA)
2) SCOTUS requires small remedies to OSHA but it goes through in essence
3) We are then "good" (no new restrictions needed) until Sept when 4th dose becomes necessary, based on papers like these. So 4th dose mandate becomes effective.
4) repeat every sept for 2023, 2024, etc.. probably fizzles by then
If you are unvaxed, need to move to red state. This isn't going away
Matt: hi phd, we both see a safety signal in mrna for those < 40, and nature says risks to <40 is higher with vax than with covid, so are we sure a mandate makes sense? could it be doing more harm than good in that group? (putting aside the 100 other arguments against mandate)
phd: I don't see any data saying it's worse for < 40
Matt: it's here in nature, and you have sent me several papers from them, so I believe anything they say, per your instruction
phd: well, there's a big picture you are missing, there are public benefits to vaxing everyone even if it causes more myo in some groups
matt: like what?
phd: not filling the hospitals
matt: but hospitals never filled with 40 year olds, heck they never really filled in most places with people of any age
phd: but there are other public health risks to consider, such as long covid
matt: yes but that's individual choice, that doesn't affect public health
phd: you are missing the big picture, the costs of not vaxing people is greater than the tiny tiny harm of vaxing people... in other words the benefit to public health by saving hospitals by vaxing everyone is huge and you are missing that
matt: ok then let's mandate it for everyone > 60, that will save the hospitals and the costs
phd: you are missing the big picture, and I don't want to engage with you on this anymore