From the abstract: > Conclusions: History of primary-series vaccination enhanced immune protection against omicron reinfection, but history of booster vaccinat

From the abstract: > Conclusions: History of primary-series vaccination enhanced immune protection against omicron reinfection, but history of booster vaccination compromised protection against omicron reinfection. These findings do not undermine the short-term public health utility of booster vaccination. That last sentence seems odd. From the full paper: > These findings do not undermine the utility of booster vaccination in the short-term, but may point to potentially significant public health complexities requiring fine-tuning of booster vaccination to those who can best benefit from it, such as those most clinically vulnerable to severe COVID-19. After following this stuff long enough, it's hard not to wonder if the authors actually believed that statement in the abstract or just put it in there because they didn't want to ruffle feathers. The paper says pretty much nobody has a severe reinfection, and that a booster makes it more likely that you'll get reinfected. If severe reinfection is mostly out the window, then it seems plausible that the next best goal is reducing reinfections period.