[fknorangesite]

The way you phrased this it sounds like they're being intentionally misleading, but it's directly addressed in the article: there just aren't good, complete studies on this for Omicron yet. For example:

> A rapid analysis from the SIREN study showed lower protection from both vaccination and previous infection to Omicron compared to Delta, but indicated higher protection among those who had received booster vaccination.

and

> Comprehensive analysis is ongoing into exactly how much additional protection the vaccines provide against Omicron infections, but a rapid unadjusted analysis from the SIREN study indicated an increasing benefit of each vaccine dose in those with prior infection.

Note "rapid analysis" for the Omicron.

[Tomminn]

I think that if those studies showed large reductions in transmission and infection of omicron with vaccination then they wouldn't provide the disclaimer that these studies are not good and complete. Why are the studies that show substantial omicron hospital reductions and death reductions from vaccines good and complete? By what metric do these articles differ from those which show vaccines barely budge infection and transmission rates? Often both claims (substantial hosp/death reduction, minimal infec/trans reduction) are found in the same damn paper.

Also everyone knows many people scan articles, and it feels like the format of this article is intentionally constructed to deceive those people. I would estimate 60% of readers come away with the impression those transmission and infection reductions are for omicron. The only reason I didn't make that mistake was because I knew those numbers for omicron were super far off from what is currently understood, and so I read the article more closely that I ordinarily would an article in this format.