Yes, I did. And no, it didn't.
It is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned negative effectiveness. And while the study definitely shows waning immunity, the apparent "lower immunity compared to someone unvaccinated" after 8 months is just an artefact resulting from the fact that you are unlikely to get covid twice in a row (i.e. natural immunity).
The Lancet study actually shows an overall vaccine effectiveness of 84% and naturally concludes by recommending booster doses. The 84% figure is may also be an artefact and doesn't account for Omicron, buy I could say that from the study, the vaccine is 84% effective over 9 months, which would be as misleading as the "immunity is lower after 8 months" quote.
The vaccine would only work for a few months - even for Omicron, never mind future variants.
Unless you plan to get a booster every 4 months vaccines are not a viable strategy.
And sure enough current vaccines are not a viable strategy, but it tells you nothing about covid vaccines as a whole. Researchers are not standing still, new vaccines are being researched, and even if we can only make short lived vaccines, it doesn't mean that vaccines are not a viable strategy. Flu vaccines are a viable strategy, they save many lives despite a rather low effectiveness and requiring yearly injections.
But now, the vaccine effectiveness is actually negative in several places! I have even seen what seemingly look like nonsense such as vaccinated but unboosted people having much lower infection rates than both boosted and unvaccinated people. It is something that has been puzzling me for a while and that study may be final piece I needed.
What I have seen so far:
- The vaccine was very effective against Alpha, not as effective against Delta but still very good.
- The vaccine has some effectiveness against Omicron, but it wanes quickly. After about 6 months, it doesn't do much, but not nothing, especially against severe cases. I've seen around 20% effectiveness against infection, I suspect even less against BA.4/5
- Almost everyone has some immunity now, natural or vaccine induced.
So, what I think happened is that many people got their booster just before the first Omicron wave, giving them significant protection. Far from perfect, but enough to see it clearly in the stats. Most of those who didn't receive boosters or were unvaccinated caught it (with or without symptoms). Later, in the following waves (BA.2,4,5) and even in the end of the first wave, those who had their boosters found their protection diminished, while the unvaccinated were protected by their first wave Omicron infection, which, according to the article, seems to be highly effective.
I would rather avoid deliberately getting sick though... If you really want to attend these large gatherings because that's what you enjoy, fine, but doing that just to get covid is a terrible reason. There is no guarantee it will all go according you your plan. If that pandemic has taught us anything, it is than not much happened according to plans. I would rather wait for an Omicron optimized vaccine that may not do everything as planned, but at least went through trials.
The only reason I can imagine where getting deliberately infected is worth it is if you plan to be in a situation where you really can't afford to get covid. And if that's the case, getting an extra dose of the current mRNA vaccines at the right moment will offer you some limited time protection.
And finally, I think that vaccine mandates should go. Because almost everyone has some immunity, and these old vaccines offer very limited protection, it won't do much besides pissing some people off. I am still very pro-vaccine, but I don't see the need for mandates anymore.