Covid in Norway: Officials 'Recommend' Doses 5 (Now) and 6 (in Fall) Despite Admission that 'no correlate of protection' has been established
Is this how the West will deal with the looming pension funding crisis? Notes on what looks like 'flying blind' and reliance on questionable considerations
A bit over a week ago, I brought you ‘news’ from up North that indicated public health officials, with the undying assistance of legacy media, had begun to rewrite the ‘history’ of Covid in Norway. Reference is thus made to this piece from 13 March 2023.
Needless to say, it’s a largely fictional account that, in my estimation, is designed to deflect blame and gaslight the public about the complicity and, yes, questionable conduct of virtually all political parties, public health officialdom, and legacy media.
While this certainly reeks of ‘conspiracy’ (which I won’t rule out), I cannot prove this beyond reasonable doubt as I lack the written documents or access to internal messages between the principal actors. That said, for the following, try to keep in mind that a ‘big conspiracy’ may not even be necessary as long as their is a convergence of shared interests among a sizeable number of (bad) actors; reasons for acting as ‘if led by an invisible hand’ (Adam Smith) would include the avoidance of criminal charges, I’d add.
Without much further ado, here’s what happened after I posted the above-linked piece 10 days ago. As always, translations and emphases mine.
Norway to ‘Recommend’ Doses 5 and 6 for Seniors 75+
On 17 March 2023, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (Folkehelseinstituttet, IPH) came out with a press release about new ‘recommendations’ for senior citizens:
The government has decided to follow the Institute of Public Health's recommendation for a new booster dose of Coronavirus vaccines for those aged 75 and older, as well as nursing home residents if more than 6 months have passed since the last dose.
Although the trajectory of infectious pressures in spring and summer is uncertain, the IPH believes that it is likely that infections may increase during the next few months. To protect those most affected by a possible new wave of infection, the IPH recommends a new booster dose.
I’ll briefly interrupt this stream of unconsciousness here for a moment to direct your attention to what the very same IPH had to say about the current state of the ‘pandemic’. The below is an excerpt from their weekly updates on the ‘pandemic’, in particular No. 10, published on 16 March 2023 (i.e., one day before the above-related ‘recommendation’, the below passages are on pp. 3-4; emphases mine):
The COVID-19 epidemic remains at a low level. After a sharp decline in infections and new hospitalisations at the beginning of the year, a period of stable incidence followed. In recent weeks, there has been a steady increase in the level of SARS-CoV-2 in wastewater, while the number of new hospitalisations remained relatively stable. [please switch to panic mode now]
In week 10, 64 new hospitalisations with COVID-19 as the main cause have been reported so far, which is lower than 84 in week 9 and 78 in week 8. The number of new hospitalisations with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 (regardless of the reason for hospitalisation), was 159 in week 10 after 154 in week 9 [remember that 10 days ago we learned that the split between hospitalisation for vs. with Covid is said to be about 50:50, which means something is off: if there were 64 hospitalisations for Covid in week 10, it would indicate that the remaining 95 patients would be hospitalised with Covid—that’s an almost 48% difference]. The number of new admissions to ICUs is consistently low with one new hospitalisation in both week 9 and week 10.
COVID-19 associated deaths (13 in week 10, after 17 in week 9 and 10 in week 8) have been relatively stable low in recent weeks… [remember: the category of ‘Covid-associated deaths’ is a conflation of dying of and with Covid, i.e., that number is practically meaningless]
The number of [Covid-positive] cases reported to MSIS [the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases] has been relatively stable (346 in week 10 compared to 363 in week 9). The share of people who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the population (Symptometer [the IPH’s extrapolation tool used to project the incidence of disease at population-level]) and the share of consultations with doctors and emergency services are at a stable low level.
It cannot be excluded that the increase of SARS-CoV-2 seen in wastewater over several weeks is an early sign of a new wave [please panic now]. The Omicron BA.2 subvariant XBB.1.5 is now the most frequently occurring single variant in Norway. BA.2 virus has taken over from BA.5, which has dominated since the summer of 2022. The XBB variant is increasing rapidly in Norway and elsewhere in Europe where it now accounts for over 50% of sequenced samples. Due to its ability to evade immunity better than other variants, it has also led to an increase in infection in countries where it is dominant. However, no major increase in infection or more severe disease in Norway.
What the above summary won’t tell you is this, though: as per Table 23 on p. 54, you' could learn that the XBB.1.5 subvariant’s prevalence is—17% of all sequenced test results in the past four weeks:
Finally, the IPH’s weekly report provides an indication of injection uptake among the elderly:
As of 12 March, 73% of people aged 75 years and older and 61% of people aged 65-74 years have been vaccinated with the 4th dose of the Covid-19 vaccine.
So far, so good, eh?
Let’s go back to the IPH’s evidence-based recommendation, shall we?
What is the Data the IPH Bases its Recommendations on?
More from the IPH’s press release about new ‘recommendations’ for senior citizens:
‘Since the corona vaccine's effect against severe disease declines somewhat over time, we believe that there is reason to recommend that the oldest and nursing home residents who took the 4th dose last summer and early autumn now take a new booster dose’, says Are S. Berg, Director of the IPH.
The IPH considers it likely that the same age group will need a new booster dose also in the autumn, before the winter season 2023-24.
Berg explains that there should be six months between doses. Those who want a new dose should seek the service during April to ensure a sufficient interval for the planned autumn dose.
Well, the injectable products are so excellently effective—although their efficacy ‘against severe disease declines somewhat over time’ (for which I’ve yet to see evidence as this wasn’t among the things the manufacturer tested its products during clinical trials)—that dose 5 should be taken now and dose 6 in autumn 2023.
Is this still ‘logical’?
Dear (Norwegian) seniors: please think for a moment—and decline these offers. Most of you’ve already taken four doses of these products and quite likely fallen ill with Covid anyways.
From the IPH’s Documentation (partial translation by me)
If you’d like to have more reasons to decline these gifts, let’s venture down the rabbit hole of the IPH’s ‘justification’ for these recommendations. Entitled ‘Assessment of a New Booster Dose for Seniors 75 and Older’, here are its main points:
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health recommends a new booster dose in the spring to persons aged 75 years and older, as well as nursing home residents younger than 75 years, where more than 6 months have passed since the previous dose (Option A, presented below). A second [i.e., 6th] dose would be particularly relevant for those who have not previously undergone SARS-CoV-2 infection and for those with one or more underlying risk factors.
Protection against a severe course of COVID-19 is generally high in the Norwegian population because vaccination coverage is high and many have also undergone SARS-CoV-2 disease. However, Norwegian data show that protection against severe illness or death caused by COVID-19 declines with time after the 4th dose among those over 75 years of age. Hybrid immunity (immunity after a combination of infection and vaccination) provides better protection that holds up well over time, and the need for a second dose is therefore lower for those who, in addition to vaccination, have also undergone infection. [note the sleight of hand: it does matter, logically as well as clinically, if one underwent infection before getting (or refusing) injection, but this remains unmentioned here]
Although the winter wave of COVID-19 now seems to be over [reads quite differently than the above-cited weekly assessment], future development of infection throughout the spring and summer is spring and summer is uncertain. There are currently no signs of a clear seasonal variation for the SARS-CoV-2 virus as for influenza, and it is likely that there will be a new wave in the coming months [here’s a suggestion for you geniuses: try not jabbing people in spring and see if there is ‘clear seasonal variation’…]. As it is the elderly who are most at risk of severe disease, and data suggest that the efficacy of the 4th dose decreases somewhat over time, the IPH believes it is reasonable to recommend the age group 75 years and older a receive another booster dose now. This will make them better equipped against a possible new peak in the period leading up to the planned autumn vaccination campaign before the next winter season. There is there is little reason to believe that further booster vaccination will cause any adverse effects other than those known so far.
Well, there you have it: (make-) ‘believe’ by the IPH is what is left to tide them over until ‘the planned autumn vaccination campaign before the next winter season’.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
For good measure, there’s also information on Options B and C (pp. 4-7):
Option B would be an offer of another (5th) dose for those who ask but no overall ‘recommendation’.
Option C would be no further recommendations whatsoever (at this moment).
If in doubt, the Diehard Vaxxers at the IPH will opt for: more jabs, experience and data be damned.
Option A, by the way, will use the ‘bivalent’ BA.4/5 booster jabs (against XBB.1.5 et al., see above) and has both ‘advantages’ as well as ‘drawbacks’ (p. 5):
Advantages: New dose of bivalent vaccine (wuhan +BA.4-5) provides a somewhat broader immune response that may have an impact on infection with variants that are circulating now.
A new dose will provide slightly increased protection against severe disease, especially for those who who have not experienced COVID-19.
Drawbacks: may increase vaccine fatigue, which could affect support for vaccination in the autumn.
Effect against infection with new variants is uncertain and short-lived [note the contradiction to the above-listed ‘advantage’].
Recommending a new dose now may be be perceived as unnecessary if there is no wave in spring/summer. [I don’t know what to say about this one]
In more fully developed prose, these are the IPH’s considerations (p. 6):
Several studies have shown that high levels of protection (~90%) against severe disease are maintained over time in people who are both vaccinated and have experienced disease [so, anyone who’s studying natural immunity as a ‘control group’?] A high share of the population has experienced SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the proportion who have experienced disease among the elderly is probably lower than among younger age groups. In a survey conducted in IPH’s Senior Cohort, 54% state that they have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least once since the start of the pandemic.
At least we know know that, in spite of every mandate, measure, and massive pressure on everyone to ‘get jabbed repeatedly’, more than half (!) of Norway’s senior population got infected anyways.
The ‘money’ paragraph is the next one, though :
A new booster dose this spring (dose 5) with an updated [i.e., Pfizer’s bivalent BA.4/5] vaccine will provide increased levels of neutralising antibody response to the original Wuhan virus and BA.4/5. Immune studies show that the antibodies produced after the updated vaccine can also neutralise BQ.1.1 and XBB variants, but the level of neutralising antibody is much lower against the new variants than against Wuhan and BA.4/5. As no correlate of protection has been established, it is uncertain to what extent these antibodies will provide increased protection against infection and mild infection against the new variants or contribute to protection against severe disease. The duration of any increased protection will in any case be relatively short-lived and correspond to the increase and duration observed from the 2nd to 3rd dose and 3rd to 4th dose. There is little reason to believe that further booster dose will cause other than so far known side effects, but follow-up time is short and knowledge is limited.
Let that sink in: neutralising antibodies may or may not be produced, ‘but the level of neutralising antibody is much lower against the new variants than against Wuhan and BA.4/5’. How much lower?
This is important, extremely so as ’no correlate of protection has been established’, which is to say that the IPH admits that whatever the level of neutralising antibody produced by yet another jab—there is no way for them so know whether these antibodies will do anything.
The age group 75 years and older consists of approx. 500,000 people. Vaccination coverage for 3 doses is 93%, while for the 4th dose in the same age group the coverage is 73%. With a similar coverage rate for a 5th dose as for the 4th dose, a recommendation would represent a need for around 365,000 doses. However, it is likely that uptake will fall further from the 4th dose to the 5th dose so that coverage could be between 50 and 70%. Regardless of the uptake of a 5th dose, it will have little effect in terms of vaccine preparedness for the upcoming autumn/winter season.
Nice to know that uptake has declined substantially from doses 3 to 4, with the expectation of further declines. I suppose people may be catching on, but I could also imagine that there’s fewer pressure by healthcare workers—for the obvious reason:
The 75+ age brackets are particularly ‘vulnerable’ in terms of their overall health profile, co-morbidities, and increased likelihood of (premature) death. Injecting that subset of the population—esp. as uptake rates tank—will make the injections look worse than they actually are (if that’s indeed possible).
There will still be sufficient vaccine in stock to handle both what is currently considered the most likely scenario with a new dose to 65 years and older and younger risk groups this autumn, and probably also a more severe scenario where a new dose is needed for the entire Norwegian population aged 18 years and older and younger risk groups.
So, here again: if we’d take the IPH at its own words (ahem), although there is no ‘correlate of protection’ between whatever response is elicited by any of these Covid mod-RNA injectable products, public health officialdoms are contemplating a massive new ‘get vaxxed-up’ push in autumn.
Bottom Lines
If there’s ever been a moment to repeat the age-old adage from the Iliad, it is now:
Beware of the Public Health Officials Bearing Gifts.
Note that, in German, ‘Gift’ doesn’t mean ‘present’—but ‘poison’.
Speaking of Germany, though, here’s what’s on my mind:
German Health Minister Karl Lauterbach himself admitted that the incidence of severe adverse events related to Covid-19 injections is 1 in 5,000 injections.
At this point, I must wonder: is this how the West will deal with its (bankrupt) retirement funds?
Please join me tomorrow as we’ll take a somewhat deeper dive into the ‘evidentiary basis’ for the IPH’s glorious recommendation.
In swedish, "gift" means poison, venom and toxin - we simply add another word in fornt to specify type.
It also means married.
No comments on why.
Nothing to do with this post, but many thanks for re posting Ola Tunander article!
Absolutely great and perfect compendium to Hersh post.