Photo: Contributed Answer: Mixing with unvaccinated people increases the risk of COVID-19 for vaccinated people, according to a study A recent article published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal entitled “The Impact of Population Mixing between Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Subpopulations on the Dynamics of Infectious Diseases: Consequences for SARS-CoV-2 Transmission” has garnered widespread medical and social attention. The paper uses unproven and subjective mathematical models in an attempt to simulate the risk of COVID-19 infection in various patterns of interactions with both vaccinated and unvaccinated 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 than among vaccinated individuals [population interaction] cases. “ Such a claim is wrong and blatantly biased, as I will show. This article is full of blatant misconceptions and blatant omissions. This misleading study: • Uses problematic mathematical modeling as a substitute for real-world data • Overestimates the effectiveness of the vaccine against symptomatic infection • Overestimates the risk of transmission (rate of secondary attack) • Underestimates the percentage of unvaccinated population with effective and strong natural immunity • It is not responsible for the declining immunity provided by vaccines • Published by a lead author whose conflicts of interest are multiple and significant with regard to COVID-19 vaccines. First, inaccurate mathematical modeling (also known as computer modeling) has been used frequently throughout the COVID-19 response to justify lockdown measures while promoting unscientific public health ordinances. I have not yet noticed any real accuracy or public health benefit to the multi-model computer statements or policies they create to date. The authors then used the imaginary range of 40-80% of the vaccine against symptomatic infection. This represents the upper limit of 80% as seen in some Delta variant data and a lower limit of 40%, the figure that was assumed months before any early Omicron variant data in the real world. These hypotheses are inconsistent with the current data available to the medical community. The efficacy of the vaccine against symptomatic Omicron infection ranges from 0% to 75%, which represents a range that is independent of the type of vaccine, the duration of the initial series and the duration of 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 significant amount. The most recent available information from the publication of the UK Vaccine Surveillance Report COVID-19 Week 16 (21 April 2022) confirms the vaccine’s 0-25% efficacy in reducing SARS-CoV-2 transmission over all time periods from booster dose. Current data support the fact that COVID-19 vaccines do a poor job of reducing the risk of transmitting the disease. Thus, the authors’ models blatantly overestimate the effectiveness of the vaccine against both symptomatic infection and transmission. In addition, the proposed model fails to explain the most important reason for the continuous and relentless Omicron waves, namely the reduction of vaccine immunity. Countless real-world studies and data show a rapid decline in immunity in the fully vaccinated population. Vaccines do not currently protect vaccinated people. Why can’t we all admit this reality? In addition, the authors estimate that the underlying rate of infections in the past was 20% in the unvaccinated population. From the Omicron waves BA.1 and BA.2, it is now estimated that 50-80% of Canadians are infected and thus have achieved natural immunity, with this number continuing to rise daily. The longevity of protection against natural immunity against symptomatic infection has repeatedly been shown to be superior to vaccination alone, which means that underestimation of people with natural immunity further distorts the model from being very similar to what we actually see. . Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the level of academic rigor, integrity and quality used to support public Health mandates, constraints and guidance has dropped dramatically. We are forced to adhere to observational data and models, which will fail to test in any first year medical epidemiology course as the gold standard for determining efficacy and effectiveness. Hastily, these same elements are used to guide and dictate policies that have done irreparable harm to our teens, families, careers, and health systems. Random screening tests are violated and left incomplete, leading to a discreet lack of data that should be of concern to any clinician who deserves his degree. Finally, I must refer to the footnote provided in the study. Dr. Fisman admits to receiving direct compensation from many COVID-19 vaccine organizations, 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 an issue of the utmost economic importance to companies in which he or she swears allegiance? Cui bono; Evidence-based medicine has lost its ability in an age where academics like Dr. Fisman benefits financially by producing poor quality studies that the media, the provincial government, and those in charge, including the district health officer, consider gospel. (Prime Minister BC) John Horgan recently asked the question “[Do] Do you want a title or do you want action? True academics would like quality data from independent researchers who have no conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the true nature of current reality leads us to a realm that includes unproven mathematical models, a misunderstanding of the importance of variables, an under-representation of the natural immunity we all share, and most importantly the deliberate misleading of the public when it comes to issues. public health at national level. Promoting poorly constructed research like this can only lead to further stigmatization and division in our once tolerant society. We challenge the CMAJ to revoke this “study” and likewise challenge all the media outlets that carried this story to make a correction in their next post. Dr. Ralph Behrens is a physician based in Fruitvale, BC
