Covid in Norway: 4th Jabs are Rolled out more Broadly as Public Health Officials Continue to Obfuscate the Findings of esp. the Qatar study

Nothing new under the darkening Northern Sun…the gaslighting continues, perhaps it even intensifies

And now for something quite different. It’s been a while since we last brought up the topic, hence a brief update appears in order. For background, please refer to the below postings from August:

Covid in Norway: this Summer, there were 100X more Covid Hospitalisations than last year while Public Health Officials Dispute Official Advice

Covid in Norway: Lies of Omission by the Institute of Public Health Suggests Massive Misinformation on Their Part

Covid in Norway: as 4th jabs are rolled out, public health officialdom fears 'vaccine fatigue' as 1 out of 1,250 triple-jabbed require hospitalisation in July

Personal Impressions of Everyday Life and Media Coverage

Apart from a couple of odd mentions, legacy media has fallen virtually silent on the topic. There’s barely anything that’s reported (‘fit to print’) that relates to Sars-Cov-2 or Covid-19. Sure, every now and then (see the above postings), one would be treated to a brief piece here and there, but basically the ‘pandemic’ is gone from the media circus.

With the holiday season certainly over—autumn arrived in force two days ago in my part of the country—there are also way fewer cruise ships and other tourists here. This is ‘important’ only as the cruise passengers ventured ashore, every now and then one would see one or two wearing face diapers but that’s basically it (although I don’t know why: they are aboard with thousands of other people who presumably don’t wear these face diapers, but I never found the willpower to actually ask any of the mask-wearers, but I might do that in the future…).

Over at the university, every sign of the ‘emergency’ is gone, too, with perhaps the odd mention, in mid-August as the term started, that a lot of students were ‘sick’ and asked for the recording or streaming of classes. (I don’t know if that’s a coincidence that this happened virtually ± 7 months after most of these age brackets were ‘eligible’ for a booster injection around January 2022, but then again, it may very well be the case.)

‘News’ from the Injection Front

As per the Institute of Public Health’s (IPH) information (I’ve written about this in early August, please just venture back to the top to the postings dated 8 and 9 Aug.), the second booster injections are currently rolled out. There’s way less ‘information’ about Covid—esp. the ‘biweekly reports’ (see here for the last one that is available covering weeks 33-34) about this, but virtually no media fanfare or anything.

Basically, booster injections with the bivalent Wuhan/Omicron BA.1 products by BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna will be distributed from week 40-42 onwards.

Here are links to the information material posted in September 2022:

2 Sept.: a circulaire informing the public about the bivalent injections and the ‘eligible’ groups: 65+, 18-64 year-olds in ‘risk-groups’, and 12-17 year-olds with ‘underlying conditions indicating risk’.

9 Sept.: another letter informing the public in more detail about the contents and dosage of the bivalent injections. Note that these products are ‘indicated…for individuals who completed the initial protocol [grunnvaksinering]’, even though it’s unclear if that means two or three doses; those who wish to do so may also take a 4th jab with the original product (even though I cannot, for the love of God, explain why anyone would like to do so, but then again, I cannot understand why one would take such a ‘booster’ either). Interestingly, while the IPH notes also the products by Moderna (Spikevax) and Novavax (Nuvaxovid), but they are not discussed in this letter; the only product that’s apparently used is BioNTech/Pfizer’s (Comirnaty).

12 Sept.: yet another letter informing the public about the extended availability of a 4th injection to those in ‘risk groups’ as indicated above, although this time the letter actually lists a number of underlying conditions that render someone in the age brackets between 18-64 ‘eligible’, incl. organ transplants, a plethora of immunological and other chronic illnesses, and—curiously—also obesity, i.e., individuals with a body-mass index of 35+. The letter further explains the underlying conditions for 12-17 year-olds, pregnant women, and—curiously enough—‘adapted advice on vaccination after infection’ (my emphases):

New knowledge indicates that there is a need for an adjustment in advice on vaccination after a previous infection. In letter 47 [see here, dated 29 June 2022] the Institute of Public Health held that the recommendation for a second booster dose for any of the defined target groups applied regardless of whether one had recently undergone infection with Sars-Cov-2.

[line break mine] The minimum interval was stated to be 3 weeks after recovery for the oldest in the age group (65+), but that a longer interval would probably give a better antibody response. This recommendation was based on the fact that it had been a long time since this group received their previous dose, there was uncertainty about whether infection with omicron (BA.1) provided significantly better protection, and the number of hospitalisations appeared to increase among the elderly.

[line break mine] New knowledge indicates that a BA.1 infection provides good protection against Omicron variants that are currently circulating [i.e., BA.4/5]. The antibody response after a booster dose will also improve if the time interval is longer. Assuming confirmed Covid-19, you can wait 3-4 months to take another booster dose. This is also in line with updated recommendations from EMA and ECDC. People who want a booster dose earlier can be offered it, provided that a minimum of 3 weeks have passed since recovery.

Couple of things to note: like elsewhere, most notably in Austro-Covidistan, ‘infection’ does no longer count as ‘an epidemiological event’, i.e., what we’re witnessing here is the awesomely creative act of decoupling ‘infection with a pathogen’ from ‘injection of a product against…well, what exactly?’

Moving on to the next item, the IPH declares itself ignorant of a couple of basic facts of immunology, such as:

• An antibody response to any pathogen is always temporary (after a while, T cells and other mechanisms take over); think of it as antibodies as a rapid response unit that’s rapidly scaled up but that doesn’t stay mobilised indefinitely. Note that this renders measuring antibody numbers utterly useless, in particular as…

• The Qatar study by Altarawhneh et al. (NEJM 2022, 387:21-34, doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2203965) basically proves that injection with (presumably any) number of these mRNA products after infection doesn’t convey any benefit to the vaccinee; see also Dr. Paul Alexander’s dedicated piece that should end any discussion of ‘hybrid immunity’.

• We also know now, as per the same Qatar study, that natural immunity conveys ± 95% protection, esp. against severe disease, last at least 14 months (and counting), and it looks like natural immunity holds up well against any of the circulating strains, incl. BA.1 infection and the resultant protection vs. the currently circulating variants (BA.4/5), which is also acknowledged by the third highlighted item.

Yet, as is so often the case with public health officialdom and all things Covid-19: note that all of the above applies ‘only’ to those roughly 80% of the resident population of Norway who took any number of (mostly mRNA) injections.

Bottom Li(n)es

There is no mention in these (and other bespoke) communiqués of those with natural immunity and/or otherwise un-vaccinated individuals.

This is yet another shameful instance of misinformation peddling by the IPH, which should in all honesty finally come clean, apologise to everyone, and prepare for the potential fallout from these failed mRNA and DNA-vectored injectable products.

All of the above is thus only applicable if a) you’re in Norway and b) took any number of the injections offered.

Here’s the current roll of shame of the IPH (source):