Raknes et al. bring 'new' data from Norway, which points to 'something' that happened from Q2 2021 onwards (but it remains, of course, outside the paper)
Not strange at all, really. You ask for funding for a specific study, well-defined in scope and scale, and expanding the scope after having been granted funding is not what you are supposed to do; you may even be prosecuted for misappropriation of funds, which is correct procedure.
Where to look is who is granting funding for research-proposals. That information, if not disclosed in the study, should be public and available on request from the researchers.
But asking the researchers why they didn't include vaccination-status, or asking the board granting funding if they would have done so had vaccination-status been included would not be well-received. Expect stonewalling and possible problems at work, via backchannel-messaging: you do live in the nation of Jante-loven after all, so being right/correct matters much less than does being (thinking/feeling) the same as all others.
Not strange at all, really. You ask for funding for a specific study, well-defined in scope and scale, and expanding the scope after having been granted funding is not what you are supposed to do; you may even be prosecuted for misappropriation of funds, which is correct procedure.
Where to look is who is granting funding for research-proposals. That information, if not disclosed in the study, should be public and available on request from the researchers.
But asking the researchers why they didn't include vaccination-status, or asking the board granting funding if they would have done so had vaccination-status been included would not be well-received. Expect stonewalling and possible problems at work, via backchannel-messaging: you do live in the nation of Jante-loven after all, so being right/correct matters much less than does being (thinking/feeling) the same as all others.