This is exactly the problem. You have simply decided science isn't needed because "we don't have time". Covid is not nearly as risky as the government and media has tried to convince everyone it is. The vast vast vast majority of people are at essentially 0 risk to covid.
Eroding the foundations of democracy and modern thought in the repeated failed attempts to prevent the spread of covid is extremely stupid. I really wonder if people like you are even aware of how miserably every single policy aimed at slowing the spread of covid has failed.
1) lockdown to prevent the spread - did nothing, covid spread rapidly the moment the lockdowns ended, and we did nothing to prepare for it during the time of the lockdowns. We didn't build hospitals, we didn't train nurses, we simply wasted money.
2) Masks Mandates - A minor slow of the spread at the cost of erosion of freedoms, you don't have to be an anti masker to realize this, and the production of huge amounts of waste.
3) More Lockdowns - Same thing as first time.
4) Vaccines - We were promised this was the end, but thanks to people who think like you we pushed the idea that we don't need long term studies we can simply trust big pharma to tell the truth.
Remember this: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta..., here they "Vaccine candidate was found to be more than 90% effective in preventing COVID-19 in participants without evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first interim efficacy analysis"
This is simply a lie. There vaccine literally never was 90% effective in the real world, and currently their vaccine actually has negative efficacy in preventing omnicron.
5) Vaccine Mandates - Look around you. They did absolutely nothing.
6) Booster Mandates - ... if you still believe this can work there is nothing that can be said.
The vaccine does not have negative efficacy against Omicron. We don't have very solid data here because Omicron is so new, but one recent paper indicates that in a household setting a booster prevents around 50% of Omicron cases. That's not as good as with Delta, but it's not nothing and it's certainly not negative.
> The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.
That's from the linked paper. The authors don't claim at all that the vaccine has negative efficacy, and the study is simply not set up to measure that anyway. You cannot draw this conclusion from the data in this paper.
Assuming that Denmark vaccinated oldest/most vulnerable first, this could be a confounded estimate (because age both means you got the vaccine first, and that your immune system will be less effective against Covid).
Personally, I think it's a statistical fluke, and was going to argue that it must be due to a smaller sample size until I saw the width of the confidence intervals (CI's get narrower as observations increase).
Very odd, and I'll be surprised if that makes it through peer review intact.
It stands to reason that the unvaccinated at this point are in large parts hermits who are "protected" by their lifestyle. However, it's also plausible that the non-neutralizing antibodies from the vaccine induce a suboptimal immune response with Omikron.
We have a lot of science. These MRNA vaccines didn't come from nowhere; they have been in development for decades. Thats why the vaccine came so quickly: the foundation was well established.
> Eroding the foundations of democracy and modern thought in the repeated failed attempts to prevent the spread of covid is extremely stupid.
Quarantine and vaccinations as solutions to infectious, deadly diseases is older than the US. They were even used by the founding fathers in the war for independence.
