Nature papers are written 6 months ago. This is as outdated as the stocks rating of yesterday. So simply of no value at all.
Thanks! Now you confirm that vaccine protection is just 50%. And according Pfizer it goes down 6%/month...
W - some adice - your ratio of truth to false statements on this thread is so low that I now reckon by default that if i have not checked something, and you say it is true, that makes it most likely false.
I'm sure you are not fearmongering, or behaving as a spin doctor, to use FM1s terms?
- Protection against asymptomatic infection (relevant to reducing R number) is 50%.
- Protection against serious disease or hospitalisation is better than 90%.
- I'm sure you remember that, but the way you said it made it sound as though you were forgetting the type of protection more important personally for individuals!
Nature papers are written 6 months ago. This is as outdated as the stocks rating of yesterday. So simply no value at all.
That is false: as you would know had you bothered to read it? Since you do not, I expect, read your own sources - certainly you don't post them - you should at least read mine. The figure captioned Delta's rise in Indonesia shows a graph ending July 1st 2021. So it can be at most 5 weeks old. That figure is referred to, with months, many times in the text.
According to Pfizer it goes down 6% / month
That I believe is false, if by it you mean efficacy (and anyway which efficacy - against infection, hospitalisation, death?). Maybe the neutralising antibodies go down 6%/month? However the relationship between antibody level and efficacy is not simple see
Anyway I don't think we know how the efficacy against delta changes over time yet with any great accuracy, but I'd be interested in your source for this - from which we might be able to work out something. I would not be surprised if efficacy did decrease significantly ater 12 months...