...our analysis provides evidence for an increased risk of infection by the Beta, Gamma, or Delta variants compared to the Alpha variant after full vaccination, regardless of the vaccine used. This indicates lower vaccine effectiveness against infection with the Beta, Gamma and Delta variant compared to the Alpha variant.
The effect is most pronounced in the following 2-4 weeks after vaccination, though immunity against alpha is still mitigated (largely irrelevant since alpha is no longer dominant in the wild).
These results track with an Israeli study published in BMJ which, once again, showed an increase in infectivity post vaccination for a limited window.
Did you miss the 'compared to the Alpha variant' part?
It's saying that if you are vaccinated, the protection from infection is greater against the Alpha variant than against any of the other enumerated variants. That does not mean that vaccinated individuals are at greater risk from these variants than the unvaccinated (though the statements do not necessarily preclude that).
The effect is most pronounced in the following 2-4 weeks after vaccination, though immunity against alpha is still mitigated (largely irrelevant since alpha is no longer dominant in the wild).
These results track with an Israeli study published in BMJ which, once again, showed an increase in infectivity post vaccination for a limited window.
Did you miss the 'compared to the Alpha variant' part?
It's saying that if you are vaccinated, the protection from infection is greater against the Alpha variant than against any of the other enumerated variants. That does not mean that vaccinated individuals are at greater risk from these variants than the unvaccinated (though the statements do not necessarily preclude that).
Then the authors should say vaccines provide lesser immunity against variants compared to alpha, vs "increased risk."
I reread it a few times and I think you're right. It's very badly worded, but I probably misread it. Just pulling the post altogether.