Corona is primarily dangerous to the very old and the already sick. Occasionally, it is true, somebody who is younger or not already sick ends up dying. This happens with influenza and other viruses too. While that’s regrettable, Corona is not the leading cause of tragedies like these, and on balance they are too rare to pose an overarching unprecedented global threat to our hospitals, to our public health, to our nursing homes, or to whatever it is we’re supposed to be worried about right now. Given the stratified nature of Corona risk, the majority of the gains to be had from stimulating SARS-2 antibodies are concentrated in around 10-15% of the population. This is true whatever you believe about the vaccines, their safety or their efficacy.

If you want to lower hospitalisations and deaths, in other words, the difference between vaccinating 40% of your population and 80% of your population is not nearly as great as it seems. In fact, as you move to ever lower-risk cohorts, the volume of vaccinations required to reduce deaths grows in inverse proportion to the deaths you are reducing. This is the phenomenon of diminishing returns. It means that if you have vaccinated all the olds and sicks and an additional 50% or 70% of everyone, AND you are still suffering from a raging pandemic of the unvaccinated, there are probably not enough immunologically naive people left to give you a hope of vaccinating your way out.

The unspeakable truth is that the vaccines don’t suppress case rates at all. We have long known that their efficacy against infection fades to zero after week 20, but even at the high point — the first month after dose 2 — the protection is sure to be vastly overstated. This would be why even academic journals are starting to run pieces with titles like “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States

Read the article at Eugyppius