| I don't see anything about severity reduction in the article. The argument it has lies in
>As the World Health Organization puts it, “if mandatory vaccination is considered necessary to interrupt transmission chains and prevent harm to others, there should be sufficient evidence that the vaccine is efficacious in preventing serious infection and/or transmission.” For Omicron, there is as yet no such evidence. And > The little data we have suggest the opposite. One preprint study found that after 30 days the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines no longer had any statistically significant positive effect against Omicron infection, and after 90 days, their effect went negative—i.e., vaccinated people were more susceptible to Omicron infection. That's the most relevant quote from the article. The study mentioned is here [0]. Fwiw, one of the authors discovered HIV[1], so they presumably know what they're talking about. [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v... [1] The end of the article mentions "Dr. Montagnier was a winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering the human immunodeficiency virus." Edit: For the record, I'm most definitely not anti-vax, just summarizing the article as best I could. Thanks to everyone who dig deeper than I did. |
"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."
Compare this to the suggestion of WSJ's word choice of "obsolete"