The conclusion seems to be contradictory with the "agreed scientific consensus". If the Negative Efficacy in the vaccinated group is because of behavior differences, leading to acquiring and spreading the disease, then how can more vaccines be the answer? It's illogical and contradictory. Surely someone in the research group recognised this!

For example, the vaccinated are getting tested more (which is logical since they are more likely to be concerned about covid than the unvaccinated). However, the prevailing narrative suggests that vaccines reduce symptoms. Therefore the behaviour of vaccinated (with reduced or no symptoms) would logically lead to more risky behaviour and more spreading of the disease. So efficacy of the vaccine is great because it reduces symptoms, according the authors. Then they say. behavior is the reason there is low efficacy. But logically it's also the reason they are catching and spreading it more, so the vaccine isn't so great is it?

You can't have your cake and eat it if you are going to claim behaviors is a significant variable but only for the variables that show the vaccine is great, otherwise we completely ignore behaviors.

These behavior claims appear to always err on the side of the vaccinated (as with the UK Vaccine Surveillance Report which makes the same claims without evidence).

Negative efficacy rates appear to be increasing for the vaccinated week by week (as confirmed by the UK Vaccine Surveillance Report over the last few months). So for these "behavior" claims to be true, you would have to be able to prove that the behavior of the vaccinated has changed dramtically, but the unvaccinated behavior has changed very little. Why would this be? A previous study showed that levels of concern and consequential behaviors were quite different for the two cohorts with the vaccinated being more concerned. But why has this changed so dramatically? Are the vaccinated getting more concerned OR are the unvaccinated getting less concerned?

This flawed and unexplained analysis is driving the conclusion for more vaccine rollout, without considering the possibility that this is NOT the full story and it could more plausibly be some kind of loss of immunity in the vaccinated or another reason

Am I wrong in thinking it's entirely possible that the negative effectiveness of the vaccine for recovered people is real (biological), and not behavioral? Our bodies don't have unlimited immune resources. If vaccines induce an immune response that is less effective than recovered immunity at fighting an evolved variant (which various studies have shown at least for Delta), I would think this would be expected, and not a surprise.

Scotland's latest official public health real world data tallies up with the negative effectiveness found by the scientists that carried out this study.

https://publichealthscotlan...

See Table 15.

People who had only 2 jabs were almost 3 times more likely to catch Covid in the week 25th Dec-31st Dec than the unvaccinated (who were similar to the 'boosted')

Unvaccinated 1,555,449, cases 20,276, 1.3%
2 Doses 1,522,961, cases 54,727, 3.59%
Boosted 2,429,498, cases 30,222, 1.24%

But if you are boosted you appear to be at least 4 times less likely to be hospitalised or worse from Covid, than the 2 jabbed/unvaccinated. See tables 16 and 17. So there still is a case for the vaccines

Thank you for providing the results from a different dataset which aligns with the data in this study. I do note that the Scottish study did not attempt to control for age or other risk factors; they only presented raw data. In fact, the authors of the Scottish study did not even acknowledge the lower symptomatic infection rate of the unvaccinated compared to the 1 dose or 2 dose cohorts in the last three weeks of December.

It appears that to maintain the booster cohorts greater protection from symptomatic infection, hospitalization, and death, a booster would be required every 3 months. Is that what you are advocating for?

Dear authors,

Thank you for providing these important data. I am afraid I cannot see how you actually arrive at your conclusion. Can you please help me understand:

1. How did you actually know people got infected - with the respective variant? You state that cases were identified by “by whole-genome sequencing or a novel variant specific PCR test targeting the 452L mutation.” How many were verified by the former? As for the PCR test, can you please comment how your modifications overcome the limitations as recently announced by the CDC when withdrawing its EUA (https://www.cdc.gov/csels/d...

2. Can you say more how VE relates to individual people rather than the numbers that your results and conclusions are based on? You seem to draw your conclusion on statistical means alone. Yet, the average person just does not exist. Moreover, your analysis involves huge standard deviation values.

3. You say that in the first month already, for some, VE is only 23.5% or even -69%, for vaccination with the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine respectively. How is this supporting your conclusion, please? Are you suggesting more repeated boosters than every month? What would that do to the already minimal or even negative protection? How could a repeated and ongoing “negative protection” – meaning that the vaccine causes an increased risk of infection - as experienced by some (Moderna), suddenly become positive and even truly protective?

4. You also say that VE is re-established upon revaccination. I am afraid I do not see the results. All I see is numbers – which are less than encouraging: the for the BNT162b2 vaccine: 54.6%, 95% CI: 30.4 to 70.4%. Even if for many the VE may be 54%, this does not mean that VE is re-established. But perhaps the data supporting the VE are still missing? I cannot find details supporting your assertion. The legend to the Table states that there was “[i]insufficient data to estimate mRNA-1273 booster VE against Omicron.” Yet, I am having difficulty finding the data that would support your conclusion that VE is reestablished for revaccination with the Pfizer vaccine. Actually, both the Figure and the Table show the same details for both vaccines under consideration. I am afraid I don’t see anything in your manuscript as to why there are more data for Pfizer, and why these would support your assertion.

5. Your methods section describes that unvaccinated individuals were followed up from November 20th. Unfortunately I do not see any specific outcomes for the unvaccinated. Your data in the Table and Figure list vaccinated persons only.

6. Can you please further explain how VE is calculated? Is zero efficacy relative to those who were unvaccinated? Yet, in the Results section you say that, relative to the booster you used “those with only primary vaccination as comparison.”

7. Further, when assessing the effect of boosters, you state that your “analysis [is] restricted to 60+ year-olds.” Yet, as stated in the beginning of the Results section, the median age of those infected with Omicron by December was 28 years. Why are you suddenly shifting to a different population group when analyzing boosters?

8. You suggest that the “negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE.” While behavioral issues may indeed impact the outcome of your analysis, your data are not merely negative in the final period. Moreover, for Moderna, there were obviously always some individuals for whom the VE was indeed negative. By contrast, for Pfizer, during the first month at least, VE was in the non-negative range (larger than 23.5, that is). So, it cannot be behavior alone. Else, how could there be such a drastic difference between Pfizer and Moderna (23.5 versus -69.9)?

9. Cases of reinfections are exploding for both vaccines, for Omicron but also Delta, in an exponential way (as seen in the Table). Moreover, the negative entries in most of your points of analysis, makes me wonder how VE relates to individual patients? Other than in the 1-30 day group for Pfizer and Omicron, each of the other points contain individuals that obviously are more susceptible to infection once they have been vaccinated. Can you say more about those, please? You say that “VE was calculated as 1-HR with HR (hazard ratio) estimated in a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex and geographical region.” From your data it is apparent that there are many in your study population who experienced negative VE. They are obviously a large proportion, and according to your VE calculation, apparently not isolated cases only. It instead seems as if those with negative VE comprise entire groups of individuals, stratified according to your analysis. Who are they? Are these the elderly, the immune-compromised, or who else?

From the study: “1. The negative estimates in the final period arguably suggest different behaviour and/or exposure patterns in the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts causing underestimation of the VE. 2. This was likely the result of Omicron spreading rapidly initially through single (super-spreading) events causing many infections among young, vaccinated individuals.”

Let’s discuss the sentence I labeled 1.

1a) Is any data available which supports the author(s) hypothesis that the vaccinated cohort engaged in riskier behavior when compared to the unvaccinated? My anecdotal evidence from my lived experience with those in my circle is that the unvaccinated are living a much riskier life as it pertains to covid infection. But don’t take my word because that is not how science works, instead, consider this KFF survey of 1,527 adults aged 18+ conducted in July 2021 indicating the opposite reality: “ Majorities of vaccinated adults say news of the variants has made them more likely to wear a mask in public (62%) or avoid large gatherings (61%), while fewer unvaccinated adults say the same (37% and 40%, respectively).”

1b) Is there any explanation why this alleged confounding variable of riskier behavior by the vaccinated did NOT appear during the studies surrounding delta?

1c) Is there any explanation why this alleged confounding variable of riskier behavior by the vaccinated only appeared during the 91-150 days time period for the omicron variant?

Let’s discuss the sentence I labeled 2.

2) I found this statement in the Methods section of this study: “VE was calculated as 1-HR with HR (hazard ratio) estimated in a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex and geographical region, and using calendar time as the underlying time scale.” That means the authors accounted and controlled for age, yet they claim age as a confounding variable. Talk about having your cake and eating it too!

Interesting article but the author's explanation of the negative infectivity seems arbitrary speculation and the article would be better without it.

What does negative effectiveness mean?

Apparently it means that the vaccinated individual is more likely to be infected than an unvaccinated individual.

The current stats in countries like Ireland show 1/3 to 1/2 people testing positive every day. Ok, the PCR test - putting it mildly - is imperfect. However, we can take it using very simple math that 100% of the population is infected within a week. End of "pandemic".

The people who go to test, are people who have symptoms, or had contact with infected people. So their positivity percentage is much higher than the general population.

If all of Ireland had symptoms or were in contact with an infected person. Then your false "100% of the population is infected within a week" statement would be true.

In reality not all the Irish are currently sick. And most of those who are not sick do not get a test.

Well yes, but this is the reason why mass testing gives a skewed outlook to base policy on. Nobdy used to get tested for any old viral infection. The more you test the more you will derive false positives, due to the nature of medical tests, sensitivity and specificity. The numbers will still be completely inaccurate especially adding in the unsymptomatic getting tested for other reasons.

Two issues need to be corrected for in the data before any real conclusions can be drawn. First, is there a relationship between age stratification, higher vaccination status and higher symptomatic disease - i.e., Simpson's Paradox. Second, was there a behavioral reason that impacted the results? For example, if vaccinations were required for admittance to crowded venue during the initial spike in Omicron cases, it would have skewed the results toward negative effectiveness.

Behavioral element - do u suggest that people have chnaged their behavior because of Omicron?

This is just a poor quality paper

What’s the situation on peer review, validating the study, replicating it, discrediting it, etc?

hey poor critic of it , bring us the proof

Decades of coronavirus research warned us about this.

Why was it ignored?

Why did scientists choose to make vaccines that specifically target the spike protein when so many studies made the warning below?

"We suggested that antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV may cause ADE effect. This data raises reasonable concern regarding the use of SARS-CoV vaccine and shed light on some roles in SARS pathogenesis."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

Any publish evidence that ADE augments infection? To my knowlegde, it only affects pathology/severity cf. Dengue. ADE primarily incereases infection of Fc receptor bearing cells, are sufficient numbers of these cells found in the upper respiratory tract to substantially participate in augmenting the infection? I doubt it considering the availability of ACE2 receptors on epithelial cells in this region.

Hundreds of studies have warned against vaccines that target the spike protein of coronavirus.

"Antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV may cause ADE effect. This data raises concern regarding the use of SARS-CoV vaccine."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

Antibody-dependent enhancement in COVID-19: The not so friendly side of antibodies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

In vitro and in vivo functions of SARS-CoV-2 infection-enhancing and neutralizing antibodies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

It was not ignored, it simply wasn't confirmed by evidence.

The UK Vaccine Surveillance Report has indicated continued loss of immunity among the vaccinated group relative to the unvaccinated. It's a bit of a stretch so suggest that increase wek by week, is down to behavioural change and not immune system issues of some mechanism, known or unknown.

"Antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV may cause ADE effect. This data raises concern regarding the use of SARS-CoV vaccine."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

Antibody-dependent enhancement in COVID-19: The not so friendly side of antibodies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

In vitro and in vivo functions of SARS-CoV-2 infection-enhancing and neutralizing antibodies

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go...

"Antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV may cause ADE effect. This data raises concern regarding the use of SARS-CoV vaccine"
Poster abstract- impossible to evaluate
"Antibody-dependent enhancement in COVID-19: The not so friendly side of antibodies"
"Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination?"
Reviews that raise the possibility of ADE but does not provide any evidence for it
"In vitro and in vivo functions of SARS-CoV-2 infection-enhancing and neutralizing antibodies"
Antibodies that enhance infection in vitro supress it in vivo - evidence against ADE

These results are strange indeed.

The fact that this time period is so short, and that delta was still so dominant during this period, makes these results very difficult to interpret given the competition between delta and omicron

Given the already well documented immune escape properties of omicron vs vaccination, previous infection and monoclonal antibodies, yet the strong transmission advantages of delta, it is possible (likely?) that the infections from those with immune protection are predominantly omicron, but for those without immune protection it is predominantly delta. This effect could strongly reduce omicron specific infection rates in unvaccinated and have a strong effect on VE estimates.

Too bad they removed previously infected from these data and didn’t consider them a stratified cohort. If this competition effect was a major factor here, then one would also expect the cases among previously infections would also be dominated by omicron, and previous infection would also be deemed to have “negative effectiveness” vs omicron. These data would give us an idea of whether the negative effect is a component of vaccination or an artifact of this competition effect.

If omicron eventually dominates and delta disappears, then this competition effect would disappear and we’d have a clearer sense of VE of vaccines vs omicron outside of this competition effect.

But there is also a chance that delta has an inherent transmission advantage that will cause it to remain dominant in unvaccinated while omicron’s immune escape makes it dominate among vaccinated and previously infected.

In that case we might see delta and omicron coexist in some sense.

We will have to watch these data unfold in the coming weeks and months

Was thinking the same thing. Wish they made the source data available

Appreciate your comments. Any thoughts on whether Simpson's paradox is at play here? Or that there was some selection bias (i.e. vaccinated people more likely to go to crowded venues)?

The authors note that these data are from the VERY early Omicron phase through December 12th that was dominated by young vaccinated people -- there could be some confounders driving the subset getting Omicron.

Have you seen results of other similar studies that align or contribute to further understanding?

If prior research on CoV already identified ADE as a potential issue.. and all vaccine makers are aware of the concept.. why aren’t there more studies looking for it and tracking larger data sets? Of all the things counted and measured isn’t vax effectiveness high on the list?

No research identified ADE as "potential issue" actually.

This research does. Unless there’s a clear other reason for VE to be negative?

If the data and methodology are faulty will there be critical reviews by industry or is the research just ignored?

No, it doesn't.

A statistical outlier unconfirmed by any theory / case study remains a statistical outlier.

Not even the authors mentioned either ADE or negative efficacy, so it's either "sceptics" trying to find something that makes no scientific sense, or the authors and the whole scientific world is trying to hide "something".

I do believe the probability of the second being right looking at the history of science is close to zero, the first one being something that happened numerous times.

So yep, I'm calling "false" here.

How do you explain why the vaccinated have increased in case numbers compared to the unvaccinated? And that increase has been dramtic since about Sept 2021. VE does not discount other mechanisms being in play. Behavior does not come near explaining the dramatic change in case numbers swinging so heavily to the vaccinated.

https://assets.publishing.s...

https://assets.publishing.s...

why worry so much about the unvaxxed IF Omicron's symptoms plays out [for the most] as a common cold? this would ultimately HELP our communities develop herd immunity and to quell the virus overall. we have much incidence now of influenza-- doesn't that seem a bit odd that there's very little breakouts of this now? wouldn't we worry MORE about an effective and proper treatment for folks with symptomatic covid to prevent hospitalizations rather than pushing a vaccine that does not provide 100% protection and folks can still transmit/acquire the virus-- especially IF vaccine effectiveness is waning with these variants?! something's amiss here. i mean, the flu vaccine--although different from covid viruses/vaxx-- loses its effectiveness each year when we try to cover the strands populated and people still can become sick after vaccination. who are we really fooling? we cannot keep racing after this virus b/c in the end it'll keep mutating for the win-- just like annual influenza viruses. have we learned nothing from the science, which is a process and NOT a product?

Omicron appears to have 3-4x lower rate of hospitalization or death which is great, but if its case counts are 6-8x higher, that means 2x more hospitalizations and deaths.

So while a milder per capita virus is welcome, that doesn't mean it is not a serious public health problem.

And this study is VERY limited looking at only the first couple weeks of Omicron in Denmark when it was competing with a simultaneous Delta wave that was predominately affecting the unvaccinated in terms of risk.

Other studies have come up that show that vaccines still have some effect reducing risk of infection (especially after booster), and a strong effect in reducing risk of severe disease/death.

And also look at the Delta result from this study -- it shows >50% VE vs. infection even at 3-5m which shows that the waning immune protection vs. infection is not complete.

Because it doesn't play out as the common cold
https://assets.publishing.s...

So, these vaccines are, essentially, not effective against Omicron. The upside is that Omicron seems, at the moment, to be like getting a really bad cold. Very little hospitalization, and no deaths as far as I can find. This may be a Godsend. It is highly transmissible, with few bad effects. It may actually serve as a means to herd immunity, with few deaths. Hope springs eternal.

see UK report 51
The boosters are highly effective at presenting disease
The severity is about half of Delta, or similar to the first wave
https://assets.publishing.s...

Herd immunity is not possible at all for influenza type viruses. And, plus, due to massive vaccination there were put enormous infectious pressure on the virus to escape vaccines formed antibodies. To achieve better results, the percentage of not vaccinated should increase to have more diverse immunity response.

Wrong conclusion, this study do not address protection against severe disease, so it cannot be concluded that vaccines do not work against omicron on the basis of these findings

So assume the results you like (high VE for recent vaccination) are causal, but hand wave confounders at results you don't like (negative VE for distant vaccination)? Science?

It is definitely more responsible science to point out limitations in your study than it is to publicise a biologically implausible statistical anomaly as a genuine finding.

Is it possible we could be seeing Dengue-like vaccine-enhanced disease? Keep in mind, this has a real-world precedent, as the failure of Dengvaxia made very clear.

Higher testing frequencies among the vaccinated and fewer restrictions are more likely reasons.
ADE would likely manifest as more severe disease in the vaccinated

It's more likely the opposite. Fewer restrictions don't explain the difference between vaxd cases and unvaxd cases widening as every week goes by. Both groups enjoy less restrictions. More vaxd would logically get tested but why would testing change so dramatically swinging cases heavily to the vaxd? It wouldn't. It would largely stay the same for both groups. It's a wholly unsatisfying argument and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

ADE antibody dependent enhancement caused negative VE in an older measles and RSV vaccine before they were stopped.

No ADE was observed after any measles vaccine.

Is this history not correct.. about RSV and measles? Or not conclusive about what the problem was? Few paragraphs down, after dengue discussion

https://www.chop.edu/center...

Well I kind of meant actually authorised and widely used vaccines, not the ones that were tested and never let into market.

Hello Jeff. I'm not knowledgeable but wish to be. Could you please tell me why a Negative VE would not be possible?