It's pretty clear they knew all along that the efficacy (by dose) was subject to exponential decay (even ignoring the appearance of "vaccine-escape" variants such as omicron). They didn't tell us up front because they knew we would never go for a never-ending regimen of "boosts", and figured they'd be able to propagandize their way into a long-term sustained program of injections if they just sprang it on us by surprise. Hence, the cut-off of the testing period on both "vaccines", the injection of the control, and the unwillingness to release crucial data relevant to assessing the performance of these injections. Perhaps the less bloody-minded people behind the scenes thought they would have a better solution/crisis would have ended before it ever got to the point where they'd be "boosting".
Feb 11, 2022·edited Feb 11, 2022Liked by Abhijit Bakshi
If only we had any population-level data about seropositivity, broken down by injection status; or data about relative levels of comorbidities by injection status. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the injected population was actually generally healthier (pre-injection) than the non-injected population: this could have the potential to significantly skew the "efficacy against hospitalization or death" results.
The efficacy drops in younger populations may have something to do with the fact that the (un-tampered-with) immune systems of younger people may be substantially more effective in warding off infection than those of the elderly. If the immune system doesn't do much to begin with, compromising its effectiveness is unlikely to be as damaging as disabling a healthy immune system. E.g. taking away feed from the Polish cavalry in the second world war, versus taking fuel away from panzers - very clumsy analogy, but hopefully that gets the point across.
It's pretty clear they knew all along that the efficacy (by dose) was subject to exponential decay (even ignoring the appearance of "vaccine-escape" variants such as omicron). They didn't tell us up front because they knew we would never go for a never-ending regimen of "boosts", and figured they'd be able to propagandize their way into a long-term sustained program of injections if they just sprang it on us by surprise. Hence, the cut-off of the testing period on both "vaccines", the injection of the control, and the unwillingness to release crucial data relevant to assessing the performance of these injections. Perhaps the less bloody-minded people behind the scenes thought they would have a better solution/crisis would have ended before it ever got to the point where they'd be "boosting".
If only we had any population-level data about seropositivity, broken down by injection status; or data about relative levels of comorbidities by injection status. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the injected population was actually generally healthier (pre-injection) than the non-injected population: this could have the potential to significantly skew the "efficacy against hospitalization or death" results.
The efficacy drops in younger populations may have something to do with the fact that the (un-tampered-with) immune systems of younger people may be substantially more effective in warding off infection than those of the elderly. If the immune system doesn't do much to begin with, compromising its effectiveness is unlikely to be as damaging as disabling a healthy immune system. E.g. taking away feed from the Polish cavalry in the second world war, versus taking fuel away from panzers - very clumsy analogy, but hopefully that gets the point across.