Choice quote time. Interestingly the authors of the paper cited offer the following conclusion:
"Given the likelihood that SARS-CoV-2 will continue to mutate and might remain a threat for years if not decades, leading to the emergence of variants or subvariants that might be more immune-evasive, and given that reinfections are occurring and might continue to occur due to these emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants at scale in many countries across the globe, and given that reinfection contributes nontrivial health risk both in the acute and postacute phases, a strategy that would result in vaccines that are more durable, cover a broad array of variants (variant-proof vaccine strategy), reduce transmission (and subsequently reduce the risk of infection and reinfection) and reduce both acute and long-term consequences in people who get infected or reinfected is urgently needed"
So rather than rejection of the efficacy of vaccines per se, they intimate the changeable nature of the virus is the issue.
So. Whose take shall we put our faith in? Ivermectin man with a clear agenda, or the considered thoughts of the article authors?
Answers on a postcard...
@RAFUH