23rd December 2021 findings out of UK matches DANISH & Israeli results, show dramatic protection declines against symptomatic Omicron; this points to a 4th dose and more in 2022; role up 'dem' sleeves
by Paul Alexander
As seen in the prior shared devastating Danish results for Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for Omicron and Delta variants and particularly terrible results for Omicron (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3.full.pdf)
As you see in the table below, is far worse for Omicron regardless of mRNA vaccine, regardless of period post jab.
We now have terrible results out of the UK for omicron (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1043807/technical-briefing-33.pdf) showing that:
Boosters protect against symptomatic COVID-19 caused by Omicron for about 10 weeks
The UK Health Security Agency reported protection against symptomatic COVID-19 caused by the variant dropped from 70% to 45% following a Pfizer booster for those initially vaccinated with the shot developed by Pfizer with BioNTech.
“Among those who received an AstraZeneca primary course, vaccine effectiveness was around 60% 2 to 4 weeks after either a Pfizer or Moderna booster, then dropped to 35% with a Pfizer booster and 45% with a Moderna booster by 10 weeks after the booster. Among those who received a Pfizer primary course, vaccine effectiveness was around 70% after a Pfizer booster, dropping to 45% after 10-plus weeks and stayed around 70 to 75% after a Moderna booster up to 9 weeks after booster.”
Re-infection must be studied further for it is being reported that there is a near 10% re-infection. This is counter to the stable findings across the last 2 years of near zero, very rare re-infection if at all and calls into question the initial PCR testing to denote positive status. Was this over-cycled PCR (cycle threshold, Ct) that detected viral dust or fragments, old common cold coronavirus? And not present infection? This is critical before we agree this is real re-infection as this argues against all we have seen. Yet, we keep one eye open and be open. But we are not headless chickens running after anything any of these agencies publish as if gospel. They have been flat wrong on everything day 1. We need to see how the first diagnosis was done and the second, what was the Ct used, what were the confirmatory 2nd tests used, what was the distance between infections, was this symptomatic etc. with strong clinical suspicion?