The vaccines are not very effective for long or against variants.

“Efficacy peaked at 96.2% during the interval from 7 days to <2 months post-dose 2, and declined gradually to 83.7% from 4 months post-dose 2 to the data cut-off, an average decline of ~6% every 2 months. Ongoing follow-up is needed to understand persistence of the vaccine effect over time, the need for booster dosing, and timing of such a dose”

Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine

“Q: How long will the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine provide protection? A: Data is not yet available to inform about the duration of protection that the vaccine will provide.”


“Previously we thought that fully vaccinated individuals are protected, but we now see that vaccine effectiveness is roughly 40 percent.”

Source: Israel’s Public Health Chief

“We know the efficacy of vaccination drops and that infection probability is very similar to that of the unvaccinated population after five or six months

Prof. Eli Waxman of the Weizmann Institute of Science, Was Israel’s decision to give everyone COVID boosters a shot in the dark?

“In this large population study of patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR following two doses of mRNA BNT162b2 vaccine, we observe a significant increase of the risk of infection in individuals who received their last vaccine dose since at least 146 days ago, particularly among patients older than 60.”

Study: Elapsed time since BNT162b2 vaccine and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large cohort

“Early, robust boosting of anti-spike protein antibodies was observed in vaccinated patients, however, these titers were significantly lower against B.1.617.2 as compared with the wildtype vaccine strain.”

Study: Virological and serological kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant vaccine-breakthrough infections: a multi-center cohort study

Delta is predominant. All analyses continue to support increased transmissibility and reduced vaccine
effectiveness against symptomatic infection.

18 June 2021 Risk assessment for SARS-CoV-2 variant: Delta (VOC-21APR-02, B.1.617.2) Public Health England

The article: Absolute Risk vs. Relative Risk: What’s the difference? has some great infographics to explain the difference and why the headlines use Relative Risk so often. Here’s a quote from the article:

Relative risks are often reported in newspaper headlines, but without the context of absolute (or baseline) risk, this information is meaningless. Absolute risk numbers are needed to understand the implications of relative risks and how specific factors or behaviours affect your likelihood of developing a disease or health condition.


Another article, from Oxford Academic; Relative risk versus absolute risk: one cannot be interpreted without the other , states:

Relative risks have the appealing feature of summarizing two numbers (the risk in one group and the risk in the other) into one. However, this feature also represents their major weakness, that the underlying absolute risks are concealed and readers tend to overestimate the effect when it is presented in relative terms. In many situations, the absolute risk gives a better representation of the actual situation and also from the patient’s point of view absolute risks often give more relevant information.


Dr. Meehan shared some images on the Highwire and I took some screenshots to share with you here:

You can see how many people have been vaccinated across the US here, and then look at our COVID cases and deaths here and notice that increased vaccination did not lead to decreased cases or deaths.