Putting aside many of the substantial problems with analyzing data in this field, along with not covering key issues in the overall risk-management decision such as weighing the known/unknown short/long term risks from the vaccines themselves balanced against Covid, I'd like to say that this section from the summary caught my eye.
> The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.
Note that the summary posits "when individuals should be vaccinated" not "if", as a base assumption and leaves no room for individual choice and risk-management decisions. Ditto on "designing policies that mandate vaccination".
To me, the way some of these things are worded displays a starting bias and lack of credibility.
> The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.
Note that the summary posits "when individuals should be vaccinated" not "if", as a base assumption and leaves no room for individual choice and risk-management decisions. Ditto on "designing policies that mandate vaccination".
To me, the way some of these things are worded displays a starting bias and lack of credibility.