UPDATE on the Oslo Omicron Outbreak: health authorities now (16 Dec.) admit that 74% of all of all restaurant-goers tested positive—98% of them were 'vaccinated'

So much for 'vaccine'-induced 'protection' against (re-) infection, spread, and transmission. Also, 'authorities' literally 'nuked' it

Remember that infamous ‘largest Omicron outbreak’ in the world in a upscale restaurant in Oslo, Norway? (If not, see here and here). This ‘outbreak’ occurred at a Christmas party (indoor setting) and involved mainly guests in their 30s to 50s.

Now, there’s some new developments, courtesy of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (IPH), which came out with a full study, which was also published in Eurosurveillance (see here).

Main findings, as per the IPH’s website

There were 111 guests in that Oslo restaurant, of whom 74% tested positive for Sars-Cov2.

Of these, a full 98% were ‘fully vaccinated’ (whatever that, if anything, means at this point).

Given the comparatively small sample size, it’s impossible to conclude which of the ‘vaccines’ is ‘better’ (sick, pun intended) at protecting vaccinees from infection.

Main findings, as per that Eurosurveillance piece

There was a total of 117 guests at the event on 26 Nov. 2021, and the authors of the study were able to track down 111 (95%) of them, even though there were no requirements in place for contact tracing, Covid Passports, and the like, which hints at the above-mentioned high levels of compliance.

99 of these 117 individuals (89%, which is very much in line, if not perfectly aligned, with the overall ‘vaccine’ uptake in Norway of some 88-89%) ‘had received two doses of mRNA vaccine’. All respondents had either taken a negative rapid antigen self-test or a underwent PCR testing one or two days before the event; eight (7%) respondents had previously had Covid-19, but no one during the previous four months.

Here’s the main findings (references and figures omitted; my emphases):

Of the 111 respondents, 66 (59%) were confirmed cases (26 based on [whole genome sequencing] and 40 based on PCR [variant of concern] screening) and 15 (14%) were probable cases (PCR-positive only). One PCR-positive attendee was confirmed to be infected with SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (…), and subsequently excluded from further analysis. The total attack rate for the Omicron variant was 74% (81/110). The cases had an average age of 38 [or 39, as cited in the preceding paragraph] years (SD: 8.6; median 36, range: 26–61) and 35 (43%) were women.

On the severity of Omicron, there is this:

Assuming exposure occurred at the party, the incubation period for symptomatic cases ranged from 0 to 8 days with a median of 3 days. One case was asymptomatic and 74 (91%) reported at least three symptoms. Among the 81 cases, the most common symptoms were cough (83%), followed by runny/stuffy nose (78%), fatigue/lethargy (74%), sore throat (72%), headache (68%) and fever (54%)…None of the cases required hospitalisation up to 13 December 2021.

On vaccination status:

Most of the cases (n = 79; 98%) and non-cases (n = 27; 93%) were fully vaccinated with a median time since receiving the last vaccine dose of 79 days for cases and 87 days for non-cases (…). Among cases who had received two vaccine doses, 55% (41/75) received Comirnaty (BioNTech/Pfizer) whereas 23% (17/75) received Spikewax (Moderna). Among the 25 non-cases who had received two doses, seven received Comirnaty whereas 12 received Spikewax.

And here’s the discussion:

Our preliminary investigation of the first outbreak in Norway with Omicron supports the notion that this SARS-CoV-2 variant is highly transmissible even [sic] among fully vaccinated people…Previous outbreaks caused by the Delta variant have also been reported in Norway among highly vaccinated populations (data not shown). In the outbreak described here, the high attack rate with symptomatic infection was likely exacerbated by the context and setting of the outbreak (indoor location, long exposure time, crowding, and the need to talk loudly)… Some transmission may have occurred among colleagues in the workplace or at the pre-party as some of the attendees had symptoms prior to the party. We can also not exclude that there may have been multiple virus introductions, although all attendees reported a negative test result before the party.

There’s a bit on the small sample size and thus an impossibility of drawing any conclusions with regard to vaccine effectiveness, the authors write (i.e., a sort-of apology to the readers to have wasted their time).

And now for the self-congratulatory part:

The outbreak was rapidly detected due to the comprehensive and timely test capacity and surveillance in Norway [which] does not currently apply the EU Digital COVID Certificate [Covid Passport] for entry to venues. We believe that this outbreak would probably not have been prevented even if such a system were in place, given that nearly all participants had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and the majority were fully vaccinated and tested by antigen test before the event.

So, this reinforces what we already know: Covid Passports don’t contribute anything to preventing (re-) infection, transmission, and spread. I’m super-glad Norwegian municipalities are discussing introducing them.

Despite the apparent holes in ‘vaccine protection’, the authors continue emphasising that

we cannot exclude that vaccination has reduced the risk of serious illness; no hospitalisations were reported among cases until 13 December, and until more information is available, vaccination, including providing booster doses to risk groups, will continue to be a key control measure. In addition, it is important to further strengthen communication about the need to stay at home when experiencing symptoms, regardless of the cause.

So, basically, while admitting that this incident says nothing in general due to the small sample size, it ‘cannot [be] excluded’ that ‘vaccines’ help. If words could be offended, circular logic would probably complain about this.

In their conclusions, the authors (finally) indicate that

Omicron is highly transmissible among fully vaccinated young and middle-aged adults. However, given the specific context of the outbreak in a high-risk setting for transmission, the findings must be interpreted with caution.

My reading of this

This is but one piece of the puzzling picture of fading ‘vaccine’-induced protection against Covid-19 that has been emerging over the past couple of months.

If anything, I stand by my initial comment that the OOO indicates that, some four to five months after taking the jabs, ‘middle-aged’ vaccinees are as unprotected as seniors. There is nothing in these data that suggests otherwise.

While the authors are understandably hesitant to call a spade a spade, the Norwegian government—like most others—are now doubling down on their mad rush to get everyone a third jab. Partially in response, health authorities are now ‘offering’ a third jab to everyone 45 and older.

In combination, we will probably never really know how far, if at-all, the currently available ‘vaccines’ actually do anything to protect the vaccinees against Covid-19. The Eurosurveillance piece is rather suggestive, however carefully worded, that we will not find out anytime soon due to the rapidly rising number of third jabs that are handed out like candy (I drove by a ‘vaccine centre’ yesterday: queues and private security details well outside the premises).

All available data (see the links in the IPH’s study) so far points to limited, if any, protection offered by the third jab, which is hardly surprising: it’s the same injection that hasn’t held up very well against Delta, hence the expectation is probably—that is, ‘highly likely’ in Theresa May-speak—‘even’ worse against Omicron.

Bottom line: we’ll probably know in about 2-6 weeks, won’t we?!

The last word belongs to the IPH, which has done something I deem ludicrously funny: the (literally) ‘nuked’ it. Take a look at the below screenshot of their ‘news item’ (taken on 17 Dec. around 8 a.m. European time):

‘atomikronvarianten’

Sure, it’s a typo (at = that, all that’s missing is a blank), but I deem this absurdly funny. It also shows that the numerical and copy-editing ineptitude of the IPH now extends to spelling.

And if that’s not telling, I don’t know what is.