My post was already too long. If I had then tried to quantify what I said by examining instances of the effect of COVID and various of vaccines on the virus over range of different counties then it would have been too long to post. My response, therefore, is just a summary of what I have observed. I’d add that I’m a professional person—although not a medico—so I’m used to reading scientific papers and journals and I reckon since the advent of COVID I’ve almost doubled my reading. I must have read papers on almost every aspect of the disease and that includes some that are of a highly technical nature which have challenged my comprehension thereof. Simply, I’ve been covering COVID in considerable detail and I believe I'm reasonably well informed.

“That was a paper from the Lancet.”

When I said ”damn lies and statistics taken out of context.” I meant it. In fact, here The Lancet article is almost the quintessential example of what I was talking about: someone cites a very reputable source to prove a point and then expects everyone to take its findings as gospel, or alternatively readers are bamboozled with science and then don't question any further—that being the deliberate intention. I've known The Lancet for years and have read articles from it in the past, and I'm well aware that it's an authoritative source of information. Moreover, I have no doubt that when the journal published the article the information therein was both authoritative and up to date—the trouble is that it was published on April 20, 2021—some nine months ago!

The information the article contains is now nigh on useless—it's nothing other than ancient history, thus it can no longer be relied upon as an accurate and authoritative source of information because the COVID situation has so vastly changed from the time of its publication. For starters, we've developed better methods of treating the disease, we’ve had time to evaluate booster shots and probably the most important factor of all, which is that we’ve seen the subsequent emergence of the most contagious strains—Delta and Omicron—and they have altered everything.

I’m far from the smartest person around but I’m certainly smart enough not to be conned this easily. When presented with a link like that or when reading scientific papers the first thing I check is the paper's submission date, I then check its publication date. Frankly, trying to trick both other HN readers and me in such an underhanded way I reckon is a pretty low act—and it's unbecoming of the usually high standard of HN posts.

However, what such behavior demonstrates is that in this highly polarized climate over COVID, people have very few qualms about twisting and distorting the truth: as the saying goes ‘if the facts don't agree with one's own worldview then alter them to suit’. Unfortunately, it's this widespread propensity to cheat and be deliberately loose with the facts that’s been one of the most significant and substantial reasons for why our response to the COVID pandemic has been—and still is—in so much of a schemozzle.

Re: hospitalization rate by vaccination status in Denmark, I have now read various docs and I’ve nothing further to add other than Denmark’s response to COVID, like almost every other country or different location across the globe, has had a very different response to the disease when compared to many other places. And that’s happened for any number of reasons, as its time of first lockdown, vaccinations rates, etc., etc., will be very different to other locations.

With respect to tolerating the risk, yes I do spend more time at home than previously. This makes sense for two reasons, the first is that it just makes sense to do so if it’s at all possible, and because of COVID I am able to do just that. The second reason is that I have yet to receive my booster (third) shot, so it’s prudent to be more careful than normal. Where I am I’ve not been able to get the booster shot because of damn stupid rules set by authorities who require that a certain time elapse between the initial shots and the booster, here that’s four months. And for similar bureaucratic reasons, the initial shots weren’t available earlier. Perhaps a maximum antibody response is achieved if the booster is given at four months duration or more but times are far from ideal with the arrival of Omicron.

Moreover, it’s not for the want of trying to get the booster now, on multiple occasions I've told both my doctor and pharmacist that if I couldn't get my booster very soon then I’d obtain it on the black market. I further suggested that they report me to authorities for making such a suggestion not to mention my 'harassment' of them. Of course, nothing happened, it was water off a duck's back.

Again, my experience here only further demonstrates the enormous variation between counties, states and even towns—as is the case with your comment about vaccine mandates being dead. Whether they’re dead or not clearly depends upon where one is. As you're well aware, Djokovic’s efforts to buck the system over vaccine mandates has only brought him big trouble, and he’s likely to strike a repetition of the incident with the forthcoming French Open. If he doesn't pull his head in and comply with the new French vaccine mandate then the chances are good that he'll likely be locked out again. As we’ve just witnessed, if anything, there are more vaccine mandates now than previously and some countries are becoming much less tolerant of difficult and recalcitrant people than in the past.

As for vitamin D, no I’ve not had my levels tested but I’ve been taking about double the normal dose for about a year now, the levels certainly won’t be low. BMI: I’m close to the middle of the normal range. Insulin: no; air: not yet but the day is still young.