Figure 2, Fleming-Dutra et al: Association of Prior BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination With Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children & Adolescents During Omicron Predominance; VE drops to '0' at 4 mths
Figure 2, Fleming-Dutra et al: Association of Prior BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccination With Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Children & Adolescents During Omicron Predominance; VE drops to '0' at 4 mths
DEVASTATING: they looked at Pfizer's BNT162b2 2-Dose Adjusted Estimated Vaccine Effectiveness Against Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection In Children and Adolescents; it fell below '0' 4 mths out
And despite this, the FDA CDC et al are going to go ahead with their full court press to get vaccine approval for even younger kids. This is for a virus that is essentially inconsequential. There should never have been pandemic measures there was no pandemic related to any significance or serious disease. The treatments and management at the pandemic really actual sickness goes beyond that.
Estimated Vaccine Effectiveness ---WTF ??? This is complete nonsense. All of these estimates are wildly wrong. What are they based on? The presence of ineffective antibodies. Anyone can see that the vaccinated are very easily infected.
I think the data in this paper for 5-11 year kids is bogus. How is it that we went through alpha and delta with almost no infections in children and then suddenly we have all these infections quoted in the paper for Omnicron? Also, it is not clear to me how one measures efficacy when it is unethical to infect the vaccinated to test out how good the vaccine is.
I may be 100% wrong in my understanding and I am open to an education.
The article’s reported outcome may not be due to “waning” but rather may be due to a bias that inflates the apparent effectiveness of the vaccine. Studies show *increased* rates of covid after dose 1, leading to bias.
Remember this early paper by Bernal et al.? See their Fig. 2.
In this recent study, the authors exclude anyone with “receipt of 1 vaccine dose or receipt of the second or third dose within 2 weeks of the test date.”
This filters out the people most prone to getting covid once their immune system is suppressed shortly after the 1st or 2nd dose.
And people (kids, in this study) who get covid after 1 dose either skip the 2nd dose or must wait until fully recovered (typically) outside study period) to get it.
The recent study *could* have included results from these time periods (e.g., after just 1 dose), just as Bernal et al. (also a test-negative study) did.
So why do you think they excluded those results? I suspect they show the same trend the Bernal et al. study showed. In other words, higher rates of Covid after the first dose- and that does NOT support their narrative.
So be careful using the word “waning.” Bias is also at work and might be far more significant. As preposterous as it sounds, Big Pharma *embraces* the concept “waning.” It drives their sales and profits.
Irrespective of the efficacy argument why are children being subjected to any kind of testing when it’s clear that the side effects can be so detrimental? I think this is nuts. First do no harm.
And despite this, the FDA CDC et al are going to go ahead with their full court press to get vaccine approval for even younger kids. This is for a virus that is essentially inconsequential. There should never have been pandemic measures there was no pandemic related to any significance or serious disease. The treatments and management at the pandemic really actual sickness goes beyond that.
Estimated Vaccine Effectiveness ---WTF ??? This is complete nonsense. All of these estimates are wildly wrong. What are they based on? The presence of ineffective antibodies. Anyone can see that the vaccinated are very easily infected.
I think the data in this paper for 5-11 year kids is bogus. How is it that we went through alpha and delta with almost no infections in children and then suddenly we have all these infections quoted in the paper for Omnicron? Also, it is not clear to me how one measures efficacy when it is unethical to infect the vaccinated to test out how good the vaccine is.
I may be 100% wrong in my understanding and I am open to an education.
The article’s reported outcome may not be due to “waning” but rather may be due to a bias that inflates the apparent effectiveness of the vaccine. Studies show *increased* rates of covid after dose 1, leading to bias.
Remember this early paper by Bernal et al.? See their Fig. 2.
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/373/bmj.n1088.full.pdf
In this recent study, the authors exclude anyone with “receipt of 1 vaccine dose or receipt of the second or third dose within 2 weeks of the test date.”
This filters out the people most prone to getting covid once their immune system is suppressed shortly after the 1st or 2nd dose.
And people (kids, in this study) who get covid after 1 dose either skip the 2nd dose or must wait until fully recovered (typically) outside study period) to get it.
The recent study *could* have included results from these time periods (e.g., after just 1 dose), just as Bernal et al. (also a test-negative study) did.
So why do you think they excluded those results? I suspect they show the same trend the Bernal et al. study showed. In other words, higher rates of Covid after the first dose- and that does NOT support their narrative.
So be careful using the word “waning.” Bias is also at work and might be far more significant. As preposterous as it sounds, Big Pharma *embraces* the concept “waning.” It drives their sales and profits.
Irrespective of the efficacy argument why are children being subjected to any kind of testing when it’s clear that the side effects can be so detrimental? I think this is nuts. First do no harm.