"Follow the Science!" indeed :p

This is my personal case and the case of many many Spanish people, as Omicron is sweeping the country.

source?

I would expect that those most at risk from covid are the most likely to get vaccinated for it. I would expect the effect to get smaller once you start controlling for age (which they did not).

Granted, I don't think it's an unreasonable expectation. But I wouldn't state it as being supported by that paper.

'persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone.'

This _does not mean_ that prior infection confers better protection. The vaccine vs infection was not distributed randomly - inherent risk is a confounding factor. So an equally likely explanation for the conclusion (as opposed to your interpretation of causation) is that the people who are naturally better at fighting off covid (e.g. younger, fewer high-risk factors), are less likely to get the vaccine.

I don't think public health officials really want to be in the position of explaining their lack of certainty (combined with a set of previously established good practices that are likely to lead to good outcomes) about nearly anything, since we have a long history of noncompliance in patients and lack of certainly just leads to additional noncompliance.

I don't want to sound completely unsympathetic, as I've lived through multiple paradigm changes and I know well that scientists get defensive when you challenge their territory. but remember, we have to deal with the jenny mccarthy effect.

(Yes, it's death rate and may not apply to you. it's a similar effect for infections)

The perpetual boosters and social pressure is a play right into the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies who want annual flu vaccine 2.0.