“That conclusion is misleading and inaccurate,” Subramanian told me of Horowitz’s Blaze column over email. “This paper supports vaccination as an important strategy for reducing infection and transmission, along with hand-washing, mask-wearing, and physical distancing.”
The sole reliance on vaccination as a primary strategy to mitigate COVID-19 and its adverse consequences needs to be re-examined, especially considering the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant and the likelihood of future variants. Other pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions may need to be put in place alongside increasing vaccination rates. Such course correction, especially with regards to the policy narrative, becomes paramount with emerging scientific evidence on real world effectiveness of the vaccines.**
The paper emphasizes that the vaccines may be substantially less effective in a shorter period of time than previously thought, but acknowledges that they do result in less likelihood of hospitalization:
Even though vaccinations offers protection to individuals against severe hospitalization and death, the CDC reported an increase from 0.01 to 9% and 0 to 15.1% (between January to May 2021) in the rates of hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, amongst the fully vaccinated [10].
The paper concludes:
In summary, even as efforts should be made to encourage populations to get vaccinated it should be done so with humility and respect. Stigmatizing populations can do more harm than good. Importantly, other non-pharmacological prevention efforts (e.g., the importance of basic public health hygiene with regards to maintaining safe distance or handwashing, promoting better frequent and cheaper forms of testing) needs to be renewed in order to strike the balance of learning to live with COVID-19 in the same manner we continue to live a 100 years later with various seasonal alterations of the 1918 Influenza virus.
You should distrust anyone who is misrepresenting the findings of this paper.
The may nor have been able to have included these words, 'do not take the vax' because of censorship. This is how our world is becoming.
Ethicslly it may be the correct approach, to give us choice, that is while we can. Before lo g all countries signed up to this agenda, will mandate all countries anyway. But as mandating has a dictionary meaning, voluntary, it still gives us choice however many will lose jobs and our homes in the process.
Constant vomiting of fake news.
Here's what the author of the study says:
The actual paper states:
The paper emphasizes that the vaccines may be substantially less effective in a shorter period of time than previously thought, but acknowledges that they do result in less likelihood of hospitalization:
The paper concludes:
You should distrust anyone who is misrepresenting the findings of this paper.
all I see it saying is that they want to force masks and limit the capacity of businesses on a permanent basis, in addition to forced injections
It's a goalpost to usher in neverending decade long lockdowns.
That's my point. It doesn't say to not get vaccinated at all.
The may nor have been able to have included these words, 'do not take the vax' because of censorship. This is how our world is becoming. Ethicslly it may be the correct approach, to give us choice, that is while we can. Before lo g all countries signed up to this agenda, will mandate all countries anyway. But as mandating has a dictionary meaning, voluntary, it still gives us choice however many will lose jobs and our homes in the process.
That is not how science works. Have you read the study?