[native_samples]

Of course it's news. Governments are massively ramping up booster programmes specifically because of Omicron, and here are two doctors at the very same hospital who had it despite having had three shots. Note these are not "two random doctors separated in time by a large amount", they're two doctors who work together. Conclusion: booster shots do not stop people getting it or getting infected.

People flagging this thread are in denial. This is an event of direct relevance to the justification for government policies affecting billions of people, that's why Reuters considers it newsworthy.

[seba_dos1]

> Conclusion: booster shots do not stop people getting it or getting infected.

...and that's a non-news. We know that, we didn't expect anything else for a long time now since it's also true for other variants. Booster policies were made with that information already taken into account.

[native_samples]

A whole lot of people don't realize that. BBC News quoted just a few days ago someone saying that vaccine passports made her feel safe, because she knows everyone is tested, recovered or vaccinated. The fact that she can still get COVID from other vaccinated people hadn't registered and the BBC didn't bother pointing it out.

[daveguy]

Two examples is not remotely proof that "booster shots do not stop people getting it or getting infected."

Stop pushing this agenda. It is ignorant and false.

[new_realist]

It is an existence proof of two. People, in this case two people, did get it.

[was8309]

I'm honestly having trouble deciding if you're trolling or not. Do you really not understand that it's not binary but about the chances? isn't it simply how many out of a some big number of vaccinated got it and how bad did they get it, versus how many out of the same big number of non-vaccinated people got it, and how bad did they get it?

[native_samples]

Yes, we all understand that. You have to use Bayesian reasoning here. The prior probability of one person infecting another they've spent little time next to, if the vaccines are "extremely effective" to use the claims we've all heard, is very, very low. That's the whole point of saying the vaccines are effective.

What you're arguing is that this event is merely an extreme fluke that a hungry press managed to dredge out of ... somewhere. That doesn't hold water because Omicron is only days old as a recognized variant at all, and these aren't 'two random people' but rather one clearly and recognizably infecting another in a low density space (e.g. not a conference or other big accumulation of people), despite that they're doctors and thus highly vaccinated.

Now, here's something to chew on. The claims of vaccine efficacy you keep reading are all wrong. They aren't measures of relative likelihoods of getting infected as you might imagine. They are heavily adjusted using a statistical methodology that's known to malfunction in the presence of variants. The raw, unadjusted data is unfortunately hidden almost everywhere, except England, where the public health authorities publish it alongside the adjusted numbers. And the raw numbers show that vaccination makes people more likely to get infected, not less. The rates per 100k are higher in the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.

This has led to the ultimate absurdity of the UK public health agency claiming, "Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection".

https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/ukhsa-efficacy-stats-death-...

Someone made a dashboard you can use the explore the UK numbers here:

https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/t.coddington/viz/UKRe...