You mean this? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00089-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6.

You mean this? https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00089-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Yes, I did. And no, it didn't. It is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned negative effectiveness. And while the study definitely shows waning immunity, the apparent "lower immunity compared to someone unvaccinated" after 8 months is just an artefact resulting from the fact that you are unlikely to get covid twice in a row (i.e. natural immunity). The Lancet study actually shows an overall vaccine effectiveness of 84% and naturally concludes by recommending booster doses. The 84% figure is may also be an artefact and doesn't account for Omicron, buy I could say that from the study, the vaccine is 84% effective over 9 months, which would be as misleading as the "immunity is lower after 8 months" quote.