1) Vaccines do next to nothing to curb Omicron transmissionRemember in the good old altruistic days, vaccines were not primarily for self-protection, but for the safety of others? “Your actions have consequences for other people’s health,” was the undefeatable argument. Failing to contribute to community health and safety was a socially criminal offense. It often sowed bitter division among families, friends, and employees.
Those at the time reasonably suggesting (based on Israeli data) that vaccine efficacy may wane were considered fringe, selfish, science-denying quacks that must be censored.
Well, Pfizer is now on the side of the quacks.
“We have seen with a second dose very clearly that the first thing that we lost was the protection against infections .... But then two months later, what used to be very strong in hospitalization also went down.”Saying this 6 months ago warranted vigorous condemnation from the holy followers of the divinely ordained public health authorities. Now it’s brought to you by Pfizer.
And neither the formerly labelled “science-deniers” or the Pfizer CEO are incorrect.
According to real-world data from the UK Health Security Agency, double-vaccination (Pfizer or Moderna) is only about 10 percent effective at preventing Omicron infection 5 months after the second dose.
That rationale is indeed sound (for now at least—and hopefully forever), but notice how the narrative diametrically flipped? Yet, the policies didn’t?
2) Lockdowns were a demonstrable failureFor more than a year into the pandemic, opposing lockdowns was synonymous with murderous egocentricity.
“You’re willing to risk the lives of others just to get a workout in?”
“You rather get a haircut than keep grandma safe?”
I recall one such example close to home: Paul Henderson, the editor of my dying local newspaper, denounced several lockdown skeptics on Twitter as selfish, dangerous conspiracy theorists. If you don’t trust the experts, you’re a science denier, he declared.
Well, he and every other lockdown fanatic were wrong. So wrong.
The meta-analysis reviewing thousands of studies and analyzing the 34 most reliable ones found lockdowns “had little to no effect on Covid-19 mortality” and come with immense economic and social costs. The researchers emphatically conclude lockdowns “should be rejected as a pandemic policy instrument.”
To be clear, the early epidemiological models predicting mass Covid deaths did warrant immediate and stringent lockdown measures. However, once it became clear that such modelling was wildly incorrect, lockdowns should have ended (while implementing age-stratified measures to keep the vulnerable protected).
But politicians and the public health authorities didn’t correct course. And the damage done is unquantifiable.
Tens of thousands of small businesses permanently shut down. Child obesity rates skyrocketed. Racial and economic disparities in education widened. Drug addiction and suicide rates climbed.
3) The New York Times: boosters are wildly ineffectiveThe mainstream media eventually catches up. At the very least acting in their own self-interest, they know failing to cover facts that repudiate the original narrative will undermine their credibility. As of late, The New York Times has been doing some decent reporting on vaccine efficacy.
Protection against emergency department and urgent care visits declined from 69 percent within two months of the second dose to 37 percent after five months or more. Booster shots restored those levels to 87 percent.
“Just to make this crystal clear, data just released from Denmark (where 85 percent of infections are omicron) show no effect of the booster against being infected and no difference between 2 and 3 doses against severe disease except 3 doses better against severe disease for those >70.”All these data points illustrate the booster promise has been wildly oversold. Instead of conceding this reality, medical establishment bureaucrats continue to push more under-tested, unpromising booster shots:
“There may be the need for yet again another boost — in this case, a fourth-dose boost for an individual receiving the mRNA — that could be based on age, as well as underlying conditions”