Dr. Ralph Behrens – April 29, 2022 / 14:57 | History: 367516
Photo: Contributed
Re: Mixing with unvaccinated increases COVID-19 risk for vaccinated people, study finds
A recent article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal entitled “Impact of population mixing between vaccinated and unvaccinated subpopulations on the dynamics of infectious diseases: implications for SARS-CoV-2 transmission” has attracted much medical and public attention.
The article uses unproven and subjective mathematical models in an attempt to simulate the risk of COVID-19 infection in different models of interactions with both vaccinated and non-vaccinated individuals. The author concludes that people who avoid vaccination contribute to negative consequences for the health of others.
“The risk of infection [is] significantly higher among unvaccinated people than among those vaccinated below all [population interaction] assumptions. “
Such a statement is incorrect and clearly biased, as I will demonstrate.
This article is filled with impressive misconceptions and glaring omissions. This fraudulent study:
• Uses problematic mathematical modeling as a substitute for real data
• Overestimates the effectiveness of the vaccine against symptomatic infection
• Overestimates the risk of transmission (speed of secondary attack)
• Underestimates the percentage of unvaccinated population with effective and stable natural immunity
• Does not take into account the diminishing immunity provided by vaccines
• Published by a lead author whose conflicts of interest are numerous and significant, as it relates to vaccines against COVID-19.
First, inaccurate mathematical modeling (also known as computer modeling) is often used in the COVID-19 response to justify blocking measures, while promoting unscientific public health regulations. I have not yet noticed any real accuracy or public health benefit of the many computer-generated declarations or policies they have generated so far.
The authors then used the fictitious efficacy range of the vaccine against symptomatic infection of 40-80%. This represents the upper limit of 80%, as seen in some data for the Delta variant, and the lower limit of 40%, the percentage that is assumed months before any real data from the early Omicron variant.
These assumptions are not consistent with current data available to the medical community. The effectiveness of the vaccine against symptomatic Omicron infection varies from 0% to 75%, which is a range independent of the type of vaccine, the duration after the primary series and the duration after the booster (s).
In terms of transmission, the author overestimates the ability of vaccines to reduce the risk of transmitting the SARS-CoV-2 virus by a remarkable amount. The most recent information available from the United Kingdom COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report, Week 16 (21 April 2022) confirms the effectiveness of the 0-25% vaccine in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission across all periods of time after a booster dose. Current data support the fact that COVID-19 vaccines do not do a bad job of reducing the risk of disease transmission.
Thus, the authors’ models greatly overestimate the effectiveness of the vaccine against both symptomatic infection and transmission. In addition, the proposed model fails to take into account the most important cause of Omicron’s ongoing and relentless waves, namely declining immunity to the vaccine.
Countless studies and real data show a rapidly declining immunity in the fully vaccinated population. Vaccines do not currently protect the vaccinated. Why can’t we all just acknowledge this reality?
In addition, the authors accept a baseline infection rate of 20% in the unvaccinated population. Following the Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 waves, it is now estimated that 50-80% of Canadians have been infected and thus have achieved natural immunity, a number that continues to rise daily.
The duration of protection against natural immunity against symptomatic infection has repeatedly been shown to be better than vaccination itself, which means that underestimating those with natural immunity further distorts the pattern of something that remotely resembles what we are actually seeing.
Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the level of academic rigor, integrity and quality used to support public health mandates, restrictions and guidelines has dropped dramatically. We are forced to adhere to surveillance data and models that would not be tested in any first-year medical epidemiology course as gold standards for determining efficacy and effectiveness. It is appalling that this same evidence is being used to guide and dictate policies that have caused irreversible damage to adolescents, families, careers and our healthcare system. Randomized trial trials have been compromised and remain incomplete, leading to a discrete lack of data that should be of concern to any clinician who deserves a degree.
Finally, I must pay attention to the footnote provided in the study. Dr. Fisman admits that he accepts direct compensation from a number of COVID-19 vaccine agencies, including Pfizer and AstraZeneca. When it comes to subjective social models, how can we trust a researcher who has direct financial ties to the vaccine industry to be objective on a matter of great financial importance to companies he swears allegiance to? How good?
Evidence-based medicine has lost its ability at a time when scholars like Dr. Fissman are benefiting financially by producing low-quality research that the media, the provincial government and their aides, including the provincial health official, see as gospel.
(BC Premier) John Horgan recently asked “[Do] do you want a title or do you want an action? ”. True academics would like quality evidence from independent researchers who have no conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the true nature of our current reality leads us to an area that includes unproven mathematical models, misunderstandings about the importance of available variables, underrepresentation of the natural immunity we all share, and, most importantly, deliberately misleading the public when it comes to public health issues across the country.
Promoting poorly designed research such as this can only lead to further stigmatization and division in our once tolerant society. We challenge the CMAJ to withdraw this “study” and similarly challenge all media outlets that have spread this story to make corrections in their next post.
Dr. Ralph Behrens is a physician based in Fruitvale, British Columbia
Add Comment