Pfizer’s vaccine in children 5 to 11 elicits antibodies (yawn) but only 11% efficacy one month after kids were “fully vaccinated”. After one month, vaxxed kids are MORE likely to have a COVID-19.
In a non-peer-reviewed report (par for the lame course), researchers report that Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine has only 11% “vaccine effectiveness” in kids 5 to 11 in prevented COVID-19 diagnoses one month following vaccination with two doses.
The report is light on details of how COVID-19 diagnoses were determined, reporting only that they used “NAAT” or “antigen results” reported to the New York State Electronic Clinical Laboratory Reporting System (ECLRS).
The report does not provide any data on the number of cases that occurred in the ‘vaccinating’; i.e., those people who received a single dose but for various reasons were not jabbed with the second dose.
When the data are broken into ages of single years, it’s clear that the vaccine is not only a total flop for the younger age groups: if they keep tracking these kids, they will likely have negative efficacy (more likely to have a COVID-19 infection) before two months have passed following being vaccinated.
Here’s the data from the report as their Figure 1:
In their Figure 2, we see the data past two months does, indeed, show a higher risk of COVID-19 diagnosis via an incidence rate ratio of <1. Values of the incidence ratio above 1.0 imply positive effectiveness; values <1.0 imply negative efficacy):
The authors try to confuse the reader with the following nonsense:
“Negative VE values observed in later timepoints likely reflect estimator instability and/or residual confounding, as opposed to true relatively increased risk for those vaccinated.”
Baloney. If this is true for the last time point, then it’s true for all of the time points. And the trend clearly shows the result in the last time point is not spurious.
The authors try to assure that the vaccine prevents serious illness, in the youngest age group, but since massive questions remain on false positives from PCR tests (they do not report Ct distributions), and the role of comorbid conditions is known, and they study does not adjust for comorbid conditions, the claims of reduced hospitalization rates and lowered incidence of severe disease cannot be accepted.
If the report were peer-reviewed, these issues might have been brought up, and the world would not, once again, be being told nonsense as fact by public health.
The Daily Mail reported on this, but has a misleading headline about “efficacy”, failing to pick up on the seriousness of the less-than-one incidence rate ratio. Daily Mail also confuses “efficacy” (measured in prospective randomized clinical trials) with “effectiveness” (measured in observational population studies)
Nevertheless, they provided a quote from Dr. Cody Meissner that shows that any attempts to expand this vaccine into the younger age groups won’t be easy:
“’I think we need to rethink this whole program of vaccinated adolescents and children. What is our objective?’ Dr (sic) Cody Meissner, the chief of pediatrics at Tufts Children’s Hospital in Boston and a member of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, told DailyMail.com”