Peer-reviewed, so it must be valid ... really?

Here we see a new and very clear example of how a deeply flawed study, evidently a piece of propaganda more than anything else, flows through the peer-review process, no questions asked. A model, assuming vaccines provide 80% protection against infection, way beyond reality, and that this immunity is constant and never wanes, also in direct contradiction to what everyone now knows, concludes unvaccinated people drive covid transmission but not the vaccinated.

From the introduction, opinionated, politicised, but peer-reviewed:

“However, antivaccine sentiment, fuelled in part by organized disinformation efforts, has resulted in suboptimal uptake of readily available vaccines in many countries, with adverse health and economic consequences. Although the decision not to receive vaccination is often framed in terms of the rights of individuals to opt out, such arguments neglect the potential harms to the wider community that derive from poor vaccine uptake.”

For further discussion, take a look at this excellent short piece by Bhaskaran Raman.