Chin et al.: “Protection against Omicron from Vaccination and Previous Infection in a Prison System”; look at table S4, see no (zero) risk, deaths in natural immune prisoners, not championed by author

Yes, do not pay attention to the conclusion section of any of these studies, nothing in LANCET, or NEJM, or JAMA etc., all fraud; you draw your own conclusion after you read the methods section and first judge that the methods are trustworthy and high-quality and can stand to scientific scrutiny and as unbiased as possible, then you deal with the results and you make your own interpretation. Methods and data/results, no ‘background’ or even ‘discussion’ or ‘conclusion’, toss that in the toilet. It WILL BE biased.
Ask yourself, where is the data on how fast any vaccine protection wanes and commented upon relative to natural immunity?
The key question is, if there are zero deaths in the unvaccinated as per S4 table during Omicron, then what does the vaccine, 1, 2, 3 doses etc. add? What additional protection? How do you get less than zero deaths? You cannot have less than zero deaths and certainly this vaccine does not stop transmission. So what is the value? None! This closed tightly juxtaposed population show you this clearly.
Just to know how ridiculous the interpretation was, in that they disregarded natural immunity which had zero deaths, and spoke of the 2 and 3 doses. Yet what do they add? Why not just allow people to remain unvaccinated? Death is the worse outcome and it does not stop infection, replication, or transmission. So again, what is the value added? See this in conclusion and ask what is missing in their bogus interpretation:
“Our findings in two high-risk populations suggest that mRNA vaccination and previous infection were effective against omicron infection, with lower estimates among those infected before the period of delta predominance. Three vaccine doses offered significantly more protection than two doses, including among previously infected persons.”
But with just pure risk of infection and no vaccination as per S4, there were no deaths. What did the vaccine add?
Why did they exclude those with one shot? We know you are vaccinated and thus did those people have elevated hospitalizations and deaths and so were excluded to make the vaccine data more attractive and less devastating? It seems they used tortured methods to make the vaccine group look more favorable. See this in the ‘methods’: “Next, residents and staff who met the above criteria were excluded if they had received the adenovirus vector–based vaccine Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson–Janssen), if they had received only one mRNA vaccine dose, if they had received an unknown vaccine”. So they went on an exclusion jihad to fix the vaccine group outcome data? The death data???

This prison type population (as in this NEJM biasedly interpreted study) is key (no doubt there will be the impact of confounding so caution in interpretation) and confined and clean and allows as natural a setting to study the impact of an intervention and disease course. I am focused on S 4 in supplementary tables (teed up by McCullough).
Yet this is often covered up and not showcased by CDC or NIH etc. because it shows what they do not want shown. If you ever wanted to know the potency of natural immunity, it is shown here for confined even in a closed population where the risk of transmission is greatest e.g. such as seen in our elderly nursing homes, the risk of infection or death is near zero or zero.
Natural immunity confers not just reduced risk of re-infection but also the type of sterilizing immunity that is protective. Bullet-proof protection and yes, there is with omicron sub-variants and clades, a breach of the first line innate and an immune re-challenge. But natural acquired adaptive immunity (2nd line immune memory) will mop up and you will recover. Even if there is some antigenic drift (small changes) even though we can argue with all the mutation on spike in omicron it is more akin to antigenic shift (large variation).
SOURCE:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2207082?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email