A study by  Peter Nordström (et al.), which the researchers conclude support administration of a third Covid vax booster jab, shows that there is a rapid decline in vaccine effectiveness. For example, there was observed to be a steep decline in the Pfizer shot’s efficacy, going from 92 percent relative risk reduction at days 15 to 30 post-jab, to 47 percent at days 121 to 180. From seven months on, “no effectiveness could be detected.”

There is an alternative way of looking at these results, and that is that the conclusion of having a third jab, will, as in the case of Israel lead to a fourth, then more frequent jabs. Surely the conclusion jumps out, that something better is need. Even if one is pro-vax, wouldn’t fewer jabs be better that infinity jabs?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3949410

“Abstract

Background: Whether vaccine effectiveness against Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) lasts longer than 6 months is unclear.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Swedish nationwide registries. The cohort comprised 842,974 pairs (N=1,684,958), including individuals vaccinated with 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2, and matched unvaccinated individuals. Cases of symptomatic infection and severe Covid-19 (hospitalization or 30-day mortality after confirmed infection) were collected from 12 January to 4 October 2021. 

Findings: Vaccine effectiveness of BNT162b2 against infection waned progressively from 92% (95% CI, 92-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 47% (95% CI, 39-55, P<0·001) at day 121-180, and from day 211 and onwards no effectiveness could be detected (23%; 95% CI, -2-41, P=0·07). The effectiveness waned slightly slower for mRNA-1273, being estimated to 59% (95% CI, 18-79) from day 181 and onwards. In contrast, effectiveness of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was generally lower and waned faster, with no effectiveness detected from day 121 and onwards (-19%, 95% CI, -97-28), whereas effectiveness from heterologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 / mRNA was maintained from 121 days and onwards (66%; 95% CI, 41-80). Overall, vaccine effectiveness was lower and waned faster among men and older individuals. For the outcome severe Covid-19, effectiveness waned from 89% (95% CI, 82-93, P<0·001) at day 15-30 to 42% (95% CI, -35-75, P=0·21) from day 181 and onwards, with sensitivity analyses showing notable waning among men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.

Interpretation: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rate according to type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals. The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities. This strengthens the evidence-based rationale for administration of a third booster dose.”

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/protective-effect-3433.html

“A study called “Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccination Against Risk of Symptomatic Infection, Hospitalization, and Death Up to 9 Months: A Swedish Total-Population Cohort Study” is currently available from The Lancet as preprint only.  This means the study has yet to be peer-reviewed.

This disclaimer aside, let’s take a look at what this early data indicates:

The Sweden-based study supports the argument, previously described in other research studies, that high jab rates do not necessarily correlate with low levels of COVID-19 cases.  It also sheds a harsh light on just how short-lived the so-called “effectiveness” of these mRNA jabs prevents infection.

In the study, the authors report a steep decline in the Pfizer shot’s efficacy at preventing severe COVID-19 infections, going from 92% relative risk reduction at day 15 to 30 post-jab to 47% at day 121 to 180.  And from seven months on? “[N]o effectiveness could be detected.”

The dramatic failure of the COVID shot over a relatively short amount of time (far less than one year) was especially problematic for certain groups of people:  men, older frail individuals, and people with comorbid conditions.  The shot appears to have a negative efficacy against severe outcomes for certain people, suggesting that getting the shot may worsen outcomes in some cases.

The study concludes that COVID shot “effectiveness against symptomatic COVID-19 infection wanes progressively over time across all subgroups, but at different rates according to the type of vaccine, and faster for men and older frail individuals.  The effectiveness against severe illness seems to remain high through 9 months, although not for men, older frail individuals, and individuals with comorbidities.”

The authors use this evidence as justification for administering a third booster shot.

Booster shots forever?  Officials continue to move the goalposts, poised to change the definition of “fully vaxxed”

The idea that Western society is heading toward a mandatory adult vaccine schedule (participate or be “othered” indefinitely) seems to be more and more of a possibility with every passing week.

In Australia, for instance, a country with stringent lockdown measures recently opened up Pfizer COVID booster shots to all individuals over the age of 18, provided people are at least six months out from their last COVID shot dose.  This is despite an important warning listed by the Australian government on its website: “There is limited data on serious side effects such as myocarditis and pericarditis following a Pfizer booster dose.”

At this time, booster shots are not mandatory for Australians, although it is unclear whether this will change.

There are also questions about the long-term implications for indefinite booster shots in the United States, as well, after Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), recently hinted that the definition of “fully vaxxed” might need to change in the coming future.

But with officials continuing to move the goalposts, will anyone ever be considered “fully vaxxed?”