This thread was deleted by a volunteer moderator. I certainly don't want a thread this big deleted so I've restored. THat being said, this thread has served it's purpose. I've closed it to new posts.
We have a new 2024 vaccine thread here. New people don't need to try to wade through 20,000 posts to figure out what is going on.
Vaccines absolutely prevented deaths during the Omicron wave. As I stated several posts ago, that is not the crux of the discussion. If you would like to turn the discussion in another direction, feel free to do so, but I'm not interested. Although, it is quite entertaining to see you attempt to twist and turn the conversation in search of that "gotcha" moment. :)
It's important. If you think vaccines prevented a majority of possible deaths from the Omicron wave then you believe that the vaccines ended the pandemic.
Neither the vaccines nor Omicron give great sterilizing immunity. People still get (almost always) mild infections after either source of immunity.
So, you can't just say 'Omicron gave a bunch of people immunity therefore it ended the pandemic' because the immunity they got from Omicron was no better (and arguably worse) than the vaccine immunity that preceded it. Omicron didn't do much in terms of immunity!
Mass Omicron infections did little to change the outcome of future infections to COVID – mass vaccination did! This is because most people already had great immune protection from the vaccines prior to Omicron.
Omicron was noteworthy because there were a ton of infections, but the did not actually change the course of the pandemic. That course was already set by the vaccines, which defined the vast majority of effective immune responses.
Nice story. It would have been more compelling if you had included some data such as vaccination rates pre and post Omicron waves, infection rates, death/hospitalization rates for Omicron waves & pre/post, expected immunity data for vaccination status/previous infection/infection+vaccination, impact on subsequent variants, etc. Without some supporting data, like I said before, it is just suppositions and wishful thinking.
A few issues with your statements above:
I didn't say that I believed "vaccines prevented a majority of possible deaths from the Omicron wave." That's kind of a word salad you have there. I did say that vaccines absolutely prevented deaths (and continue to do so). Disingenuous of you to use that strawman approach in our conversation to try and score points.
"Omicron didn't do much in terms of immunity!" and "Mass Omicron infections did little to change the outcome of future infections to COVID ." I really hope you don't actually think that. If you do, well, there's no reason to continue this conversation. That's just a ridiculous point you were trying to make.
"Most people already had great immune protection from the vaccines prior to Omicron." I know what you're trying to say here, but to be factually correct we didn't hit 50% of fully vaccinated until ~ mid-January 2021. Omicron had been circulating and surging for quite some time before that ("discovered" end of November 2021). From the end of November to mid-January average weekly cases had already increased 200%). In addition, at the time peak Omicron cases, booster rates were only at 15%. Now you could argue that most people had immune protection from both previous infection and/or from vaccines. That would more likely be correct compared to your statement.
"Omicron was noteworthy because there were a ton of infections, but the (sic) did not actually change the course of the pandemic." Come on. No one believes the second half of your statement. Not even you.
DanM soldiers on. Unmoved by 300k dead Americans that he helped slay.
For the record - did DanM actually tell people “don’t get vaccinated?” Did he say if you were elderly, sickly, or compromised by a condition like diabetes or pulmonary disease that you still shouldn’t get vaccinated? I highly doubt it.
I think he’s merely saying he’s one of the vast, vast majority who didn’t need to get vaccinated and that the vaccines likely did some damage, a lot of damage. He’s right.
Why is this so hard to understand? Because you fancy yourself smarter than DanM and you absolutely have to be right that only a fool didn’t get vaccinated? Your ego won’t have it any other way?
I didn't say that I believed "vaccines prevented a majority of possible deaths from the Omicron wave." That's kind of a word salad you have there. I did say that vaccines absolutely prevented deaths (and continue to do so). Disingenuous of you to use that strawman approach in our conversation to try and score points.
Quite a clear statement. Omicron infections carried a risk of death – vaccines greatly blunted that risk. 90+% protection against death, as the data showed. If you disagree with that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of vaccine efficacy. If you agree, then you should be able to understand why Omicron was insignificant to 'ending the pandemic.'
Omicron didn't do much in terms of immunity!" and "Mass Omicron infections did little to change the outcome of future infections to COVID ." I really hope you don't actually think that. If you do, well, there's no reason to continue this conversation. That's just a ridiculous point you were trying to make.
This is true! 79% of ages 50-64 and 89% of 65+. Since the vast majority of several illness + deaths came from this group, this population was well prepared for COVID. This is obvious by the large decoupling of cases vs. deaths during the Omicron wave compared to prior wave.
The fact is, most people had very good immunity before Omicron. Did an Omicron infection improve it – sure? maybe? But certainly not to a degree that would make any informed person say it defined the end of the pandemic. The step function in immunity came... from the vaccines!
"Most people already had great immune protection from the vaccines prior to Omicron." I know what you're trying to say here, but to be factually correct we didn't hit 50% of fully vaccinated until ~ mid-January 2021. Omicron had been circulating and surging for quite some time before that ("discovered" end of November 2021). From the end of November to mid-January average weekly cases had already increased 200%). In addition, at the time peak Omicron cases, booster rates were only at 15%. Now you could argue that most people had immune protection from both previous infection and/or from vaccines. That would more likely be correct compared to your statement.
See above for your misinterpretation of vaccination coverage relative to risk.
Omicron was < 10% of cases in early December 2021. This is sequencing based so it's highly accurate. Omicron wasn't dominant in the US until mid-December.
Nearly all at risk people had great protection – 2 doses of the mRNA vaccines – before Omicron.
"Omicron was noteworthy because there were a ton of infections, but the (sic) did not actually change the course of the pandemic." Come on. No one believes the second half of your statement. Not even you.
This is true no matter how you look at it:
1) The end of the pandemic is when we stop worrying about mass death. This happened pre-Omicron when the large majority of at risk people were vaccinated and were very well protected.
2) The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID. This has not happened yet and the Omicron wave made no progress toward this goal.
Having made me think about it more... it's hard to say what the Omicron wave actually did besides give a bunch of people mild infections? "The end of the pandemic is when ~everyone gets the disease at least once regardless of this infection's effect on immunity" – No one believes this. Not even you.
DanM soldiers on. Unmoved by 300k dead Americans that he helped slay.
For the record - did DanM actually tell people “don’t get vaccinated?” Did he say if you were elderly, sickly, or compromised by a condition like diabetes or pulmonary disease that you still shouldn’t get vaccinated? I highly doubt it.
I think he’s merely saying he’s one of the vast, vast majority who didn’t need to get vaccinated and that the vaccines likely did some damage, a lot of damage. He’s right.
Why is this so hard to understand? Because you fancy yourself smarter than DanM and you absolutely have to be right that only a fool didn’t get vaccinated? Your ego won’t have it any other way?
Because you would be wrong.
He refuses to admit the vaccines had any effect on mortality. He repeatedly questions if they are even 'vaccines.' He calls it the 'mRNA goop' and says they are 'toxic.' He repeatly posts unsourced antivaxx propaganda – basically daily.
He's an antivaxxer and partly responsible for 300k+ preventable American deaths
I didn't say that I believed "vaccines prevented a majority of possible deaths from the Omicron wave." That's kind of a word salad you have there. I did say that vaccines absolutely prevented deaths (and continue to do so). Disingenuous of you to use that strawman approach in our conversation to try and score points.
Quite a clear statement. Omicron infections carried a risk of death – vaccines greatly blunted that risk. 90+% protection against death, as the data showed. If you disagree with that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of vaccine efficacy. If you agree, then you should be able to understand why Omicron was insignificant to 'ending the pandemic.'
And this is on par with protection post-Omicron infection at least the 10 month mark (Omicron - 88%). And again, (what is this the third or fourth time now) I'm not arguing that given the choice of receiving immunity from either infection or vaccination that natural immunity was safer. It was obviously not. I'm arguing the significance of Omicron ending the pandemic, A significant percentage of the population (estimates of 90%) received either natural immunity (88% protection for at least 10 months) from Omicron or received increased hybrid immunity in a very short period of time. That is not an insignificant impact. You can say it all you want, but it is simple not true. The data undermines your argument.
Omicron didn't do much in terms of immunity!" and "Mass Omicron infections did little to change the outcome of future infections to COVID ." I really hope you don't actually think that. If you do, well, there's no reason to continue this conversation. That's just a ridiculous point you were trying to make.
This is true! 79% of ages 50-64 and 89% of 65+. Since the vast majority of several illness + deaths came from this group, this population was well prepared for COVID. This is obvious by the large decoupling of cases vs. deaths during the Omicron wave compared to prior wave.
The high vaccination rate for these groups did lessen the death rate (although 50-64 experienced similar death rates for the Delta and Omicron waves). Not doubting that. However, there was a much more significant reduction (4x) between Omicron waves. In that period, the vaccination rates for the 50-64 and groups did not increase very much and only increased a few percentages. Vaccination did not account for this decrease.
The fact is, most people had very good immunity before Omicron. Did an Omicron infection improve it – sure? maybe? But certainly not to a degree that would make any informed person say it defined the end of the pandemic. The step function in immunity came... from the vaccines!
I addressed this previously. It is factually incorrect.
"Most people already had great immune protection from the vaccines prior to Omicron." I know what you're trying to say here, but to be factually correct we didn't hit 50% of fully vaccinated until ~ mid-January 2021. Omicron had been circulating and surging for quite some time before that ("discovered" end of November 2021). From the end of November to mid-January average weekly cases had already increased 200%). In addition, at the time peak Omicron cases, booster rates were only at 15%. Now you could argue that most people had immune protection from both previous infection and/or from vaccines. That would more likely be correct compared to your statement.
See above for your misinterpretation of vaccination coverage relative to risk. Members of at risk groups were not spreading the disease exclusively among themselves. That's why there was a mass vaccination campaign and not a call for vaccinations for at-risk groups only. High vaccination rates for all sub-groups was important in the attempt to end the pandemic. Unless, of course, you believe only conferring immunity to at-risk groups ended the pandemic. :)
Omicron was < 10% of cases in early December 2021. This is sequencing based so it's highly accurate. Omicron wasn't dominant in the US until mid-December. It is a pandemic, not an endemic
Nearly all at risk people had great protection – 2 doses of the mRNA vaccines – before Omicron.
Yet, all subgroups (those at-risk, highly vaccinated groups included) experienced significant increases in severe illness/death rates during Omicron wave. Then what happened post-Omicron with a near zero increase in vaccinations for those at-risk groups? Severe illness/death rates for those groups (and all groups) plummeted. As I stated before, research outlined the various protection levels.
"Omicron was noteworthy because there were a ton of infections, but the (sic) did not actually change the course of the pandemic." Come on. No one believes the second half of your statement. Not even you.
This is true no matter how you look at it:
1) The end of the pandemic is when we stop worrying about mass death. This happened pre-Omicron when the large majority of at risk people were vaccinated and were very well protected. Seems like the WHO was late to the party in declaring an end to the pandemic/PHE. LOL
2) The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID. This has not happened yet and the Omicron wave made no progress toward this goal. We'll likely never stop getting COVID, no matter how many vaccines one gets. Why did you even include this? Can you point to any credible person who thinks we will eradicate COVID. Ridiculous.
You're first and second statements are contradictory. "The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID." Well, that didn't happen pre-Omicron. What are you even talking about at this point.
Having made me think about it more... it's hard to say what the Omicron wave actually did besides give a bunch of people mild infections? LOL Come on. You don't believe this. You're just trolling. Or perhaps what Omicron did was give you brain fog. This post is an incoherent rambling of nonsensical speculations. "The end of the pandemic is when ~everyone gets the disease at least once regardless of this infection's effect on immunity" – No one believes this. Not even you. You're right. I don't believe it. Never said as such - just another strawman by you.
Quite a clear statement. Omicron infections carried a risk of death – vaccines greatly blunted that risk. 90+% protection against death, as the data showed. If you disagree with that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of vaccine efficacy. If you agree, then you should be able to understand why Omicron was insignificant to 'ending the pandemic.'
And this is on par with protection post-Omicron infection at least the 10 month mark (Omicron - 88%). And again, (what is this the third or fourth time now) I'm not arguing that given the choice of receiving immunity from either infection or vaccination that natural immunity was safer. It was obviously not. I'm arguing the significance of Omicron ending the pandemic, A significant percentage of the population (estimates of 90%) received either natural immunity (88% protection for at least 10 months) from Omicron or received increased hybrid immunity in a very short period of time. That is not an insignificant impact. You can say it all you want, but it is simple not true. The data undermines your argument.
This is true! 79% of ages 50-64 and 89% of 65+. Since the vast majority of several illness + deaths came from this group, this population was well prepared for COVID. This is obvious by the large decoupling of cases vs. deaths during the Omicron wave compared to prior wave.
The high vaccination rate for these groups did lessen the death rate (although 50-64 experienced similar death rates for the Delta and Omicron waves). Not doubting that. However, there was a much more significant reduction (4x) between Omicron waves. In that period, the vaccination rates for the 50-64 and groups did not increase very much and only increased a few percentages. Vaccination did not account for this decrease.
The fact is, most people had very good immunity before Omicron. Did an Omicron infection improve it – sure? maybe? But certainly not to a degree that would make any informed person say it defined the end of the pandemic. The step function in immunity came... from the vaccines!
I addressed this previously. It is factually incorrect.
See above for your misinterpretation of vaccination coverage relative to risk. Members of at risk groups were not spreading the disease exclusively among themselves. That's why there was a mass vaccination campaign and not a call for vaccinations for at-risk groups only. High vaccination rates for all sub-groups was important in the attempt to end the pandemic. Unless, of course, you believe only conferring immunity to at-risk groups ended the pandemic. :)
Omicron was < 10% of cases in early December 2021. This is sequencing based so it's highly accurate. Omicron wasn't dominant in the US until mid-December. It is a pandemic, not an endemic
Nearly all at risk people had great protection – 2 doses of the mRNA vaccines – before Omicron.
Yet, all subgroups (those at-risk, highly vaccinated groups included) experienced significant increases in severe illness/death rates during Omicron wave. Then what happened post-Omicron with a near zero increase in vaccinations for those at-risk groups? Severe illness/death rates for those groups (and all groups) plummeted. As I stated before, research outlined the various protection levels.
This is true no matter how you look at it:
1) The end of the pandemic is when we stop worrying about mass death. This happened pre-Omicron when the large majority of at risk people were vaccinated and were very well protected. Seems like the WHO was late to the party in declaring an end to the pandemic/PHE. LOL
2) The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID. This has not happened yet and the Omicron wave made no progress toward this goal. We'll likely never stop getting COVID, no matter how many vaccines one gets. Why did you even include this? Can you point to any credible person who thinks we will eradicate COVID. Ridiculous.
You're first and second statements are contradictory. "The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID." Well, that didn't happen pre-Omicron. What are you even talking about at this point.
Having made me think about it more... it's hard to say what the Omicron wave actually did besides give a bunch of people mild infections? LOL Come on. You don't believe this. You're just trolling. Or perhaps what Omicron did was give you brain fog. This post is an incoherent rambling of nonsensical speculations. "The end of the pandemic is when ~everyone gets the disease at least once regardless of this infection's effect on immunity" – No one believes this. Not even you. You're right. I don't believe it. Never said as such - just another strawman by you.
Cheers!
Thanks for the detailed reply. Sadly since we’ve raised the bar of discussion beyond name calling and hyperbole I’ll have to response tomorrow at my computer. Sleep tight 🫡
WHO claims 10,000 Covid deaths worldwide in the month of December. Not mentioned is the percentage of those 10,000 who took at least 1 dose of a Covid "vaccine".
World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said intensive care admissions also surged in December: “This level of preventable death is not acceptable.”
Seems Fauci admitted the 6 foot social distancing ploy was wholly made up and based on nothing.
Dr. Anthony Fauci confessed to lawmakers Tuesday that guidelines to keep six feet of separation — ostensibly to limit the spread of COVID-19 — “sort of just appeared” without scientific input.
Fauci, 83, revealed to the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic that the “six feet apart” recommendation championed by him and other US public health officials was “likely not based on scientific data,” according to Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), who is also a physician.
Oddly, I knew this was made up the first time I heard it
WHO claims 10,000 Covid deaths worldwide in the month of December. Not mentioned is the percentage of those 10,000 who took at least 1 dose of a Covid "vaccine".
Quite a clear statement. Omicron infections carried a risk of death – vaccines greatly blunted that risk. 90+% protection against death, as the data showed. If you disagree with that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of vaccine efficacy. If you agree, then you should be able to understand why Omicron was insignificant to 'ending the pandemic.'
This is true! 79% of ages 50-64 and 89% of 65+. Since the vast majority of several illness + deaths came from this group, this population was well prepared for COVID. This is obvious by the large decoupling of cases vs. deaths during the Omicron wave compared to prior wave.
The high vaccination rate for these groups did lessen the death rate (although 50-64 experienced similar death rates for the Delta and Omicron waves). Not doubting that. However, there was a much more significant reduction (4x) between Omicron waves. In that period, the vaccination rates for the 50-64 and groups did not increase very much and only increased a few percentages. Vaccination did not account for this decrease.
The fact is, most people had very good immunity before Omicron. Did an Omicron infection improve it – sure? maybe? But certainly not to a degree that would make any informed person say it defined the end of the pandemic. The step function in immunity came... from the vaccines!
I addressed this previously. It is factually incorrect.
See above for your misinterpretation of vaccination coverage relative to risk. Members of at risk groups were not spreading the disease exclusively among themselves. That's why there was a mass vaccination campaign and not a call for vaccinations for at-risk groups only. High vaccination rates for all sub-groups was important in the attempt to end the pandemic. Unless, of course, you believe only conferring immunity to at-risk groups ended the pandemic. :)
Omicron was < 10% of cases in early December 2021. This is sequencing based so it's highly accurate. Omicron wasn't dominant in the US until mid-December. It is a pandemic, not an endemic
Nearly all at risk people had great protection – 2 doses of the mRNA vaccines – before Omicron.
Yet, all subgroups (those at-risk, highly vaccinated groups included) experienced significant increases in severe illness/death rates during Omicron wave. Then what happened post-Omicron with a near zero increase in vaccinations for those at-risk groups? Severe illness/death rates for those groups (and all groups) plummeted. As I stated before, research outlined the various protection levels.
This is true no matter how you look at it:
1) The end of the pandemic is when we stop worrying about mass death. This happened pre-Omicron when the large majority of at risk people were vaccinated and were very well protected. Seems like the WHO was late to the party in declaring an end to the pandemic/PHE. LOL
2) The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID. This has not happened yet and the Omicron wave made no progress toward this goal. We'll likely never stop getting COVID, no matter how many vaccines one gets. Why did you even include this? Can you point to any credible person who thinks we will eradicate COVID. Ridiculous.
You're first and second statements are contradictory. "The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID." Well, that didn't happen pre-Omicron. What are you even talking about at this point.
Having made me think about it more... it's hard to say what the Omicron wave actually did besides give a bunch of people mild infections? LOL Come on. You don't believe this. You're just trolling. Or perhaps what Omicron did was give you brain fog. This post is an incoherent rambling of nonsensical speculations. "The end of the pandemic is when ~everyone gets the disease at least once regardless of this infection's effect on immunity" – No one believes this. Not even you. You're right. I don't believe it. Never said as such - just another strawman by you.
Cheers!
And this is on par with protection post-Omicron infection at least the 10 month mark (Omicron - 88%). And again, (what is this the third or fourth time now) I'm not arguing that given the choice of receiving immunity from either infection or vaccination that natural immunity was safer. It was obviously not. I'm arguing the significance of Omicron ending the pandemic, A significant percentage of the population (estimates of 90%) received either natural immunity (88% protection for at least 10 months) from Omicron or received increased hybrid immunity in a very short period of time. That is not an insignificant impact. You can say it all you want, but it is simple not true. The data undermines your argument.
Yes but the vast majority of at risk people already had protection. If the vaccines give 95% protection and Omicron adds 3%, which was more consequential to escaping the big risk of COVID?
I addressed this previously. It is factually incorrect.
Plenty of unvaxxed people got Omicron and got relatively poor immunity, yes (one Omicron infection was never shown to be that good for immunity at all, and didn't 'boost' much against already vaxxed individuals). These people were large-majority low risk people to begin with. At risk people were already covered by highly effective vaccines. Omicron actually didn't do that much for immunity – I'm serious!
Members of at risk groups were not spreading the disease exclusively among themselves. That's why there was a mass vaccination campaign and not a call for vaccinations for at-risk groups only. High vaccination rates for all sub-groups was important in the attempt to end the pandemic. Unless, of course, you believe only conferring immunity to at-risk groups ended the pandemic. :)
At this point in the pandemic with lots of strain drift and evolution, nothing gave good sterilizing immunity. Vaxxing low-risk people certainly helps, but case trends suggests that the Omicron wave did not do very much to prevent infections (and thus subsequent transmissions) in the long run. If the goal is to prevent transmission, Omicron didn't do better than the vaccination efforts. Again, not really good evidence of a pandemic-ending effect.
It is a pandemic, not an endemic
The Omicron timeline was the same in Western Europe, Australia and most other places. South Africa is the only real outlier, for obvious reasons. These places had by-and-large vaccinated their high risk people very well. Omicron didn't change the risk calculation much when it came.
Yet, all subgroups (those at-risk, highly vaccinated groups included) experienced significant increases in severe illness/death rates during Omicron wave. Then what happened post-Omicron with a near zero increase in vaccinations for those at-risk groups? Severe illness/death rates for those groups (and all groups) plummeted. As I stated before, research outlined the various protection levels.
Again, you're getting it backwards, especially in the post-Delta era of pretty poor sterilizing immunity. The Omicron wave was something like a 10x increase in cases with far less than expected deaths. The vastly decreased risk was already there. You're looking at big number going small but when you normalize to cases, the big number was already small.
This is true no matter how you look at it: 1) The end of the pandemic is when we stop worrying about mass death. This happened pre-Omicron when the large majority of at risk people were vaccinated and were very well protected. Seems like the WHO was late to the party in declaring an end to the pandemic/PHE. LOL 2) The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID. This has not happened yet and the Omicron wave made no progress toward this goal. We'll likely never stop getting COVID, no matter how many vaccines one gets. Why did you even include this? Can you point to any credible person who thinks we will eradicate COVID. Ridiculous. You're first and second statements are contradictory. "The end of the pandemic is when we stop getting COVID." Well, that didn't happen pre-Omicron. What are you even talking about at this point.
These are examples of ways to define the end of the pandemic. Neither of them work with your logic – I'm glad they sound ridiculous.
Having made me think about it more... it's hard to say what the Omicron wave actually did besides give a bunch of people mild infections? LOL Come on. You don't believe this. You're just trolling. Or perhaps what Omicron did was give you brain fog. This post is an incoherent rambling of nonsensical speculations. "The end of the pandemic is when ~everyone gets the disease at least once regardless of this infection's effect on immunity" – No one believes this. Not even you. You're right. I don't believe it. Never said as such - just another strawman by you.
I stand by it. The risk reduction post-Omicron was far, far less then the risk reduction from vaccine pre-Omicron. The pandemic was already over, and additional transient bump in immunity from Omicron is insignificant in comparison.
I gave 3 examples of possible definitions of 'end of the pandemic' and they all seem offensively ludicrous to you. How would you define it?
In essence "Robin Hood" is defining the "end of the pandemic" (or the start of the endemic phase of covid) at the point where virtually all of the population is no longer covid naive. That is, when virtually everyone had either been vaccinated against and/or infected with the covid-19 virus. It's reasonable to say that that happened with the Omicron wave.
Harambe's point seems to be that for the majority of people, particularly the most vulnerable parts of the population, it was the vaccine that moved them out of the covid naive pool. This is also a reasonable observation, but it's different than "virtually all of the population".
For myself, I'm happy enough to acknowledge the Omicron wave as marking the end of the pandemic/beginning of the endemic phase of covid with the caveat that the Omicron wave killed something like 180,000 Americans and disproportionately affected younger and unvaccinated parts of the population.
In essence "Robin Hood" is defining the "end of the pandemic" (or the start of the endemic phase of covid) at the point where virtually all of the population is no longer covid naive. That is, when virtually everyone had either been vaccinated against and/or infected with the covid-19 virus. It's reasonable to say that that happened with the Omicron wave.
Harambe's point seems to be that for the majority of people, particularly the most vulnerable parts of the population, it was the vaccine that moved them out of the covid naive pool. This is also a reasonable observation, but it's different than "virtually all of the population".
For myself, I'm happy enough to acknowledge the Omicron wave as marking the end of the pandemic/beginning of the endemic phase of covid with the caveat that the Omicron wave killed something like 180,000 Americans and disproportionately affected younger and unvaccinated parts of the population.
What’s missing is a true analysis comparing natural immunity against a strain prior to Omicron (let’s call it Delta) versus vaccination prior to Omicron along with Omicron infection itself. Many researchers and the CDC both, eventually, acknowledged that natural infection was just as good as two vaccinations and maybe even better. Omicron was the booster in these groups. I’m not talking about for high risk groups (the minority). But for low risk groups who were either already vaccinated with at least two shots or had already been infected with a prior strain, Omicron essentially then ended the pandemic phase. Their immunity was locked in.
I, for one, would like to see the data comparing immunity derived from two infections, including Omicron, versus say four-five vaccinations. There is no such data. By definition these would be low risk groups as the low hanging fruit is already either vaccinated or knocked off. Where is the data justifying the CDC recommendation for yet another vaccination? To Harambe’s point, strain drift or antigenic drift is almost impossible to vaccinate against and maybe stupid to vaccinate against as it encourages it.
In essence "Robin Hood" is defining the "end of the pandemic" (or the start of the endemic phase of covid) at the point where virtually all of the population is no longer covid naive. That is, when virtually everyone had either been vaccinated against and/or infected with the covid-19 virus. It's reasonable to say that that happened with the Omicron wave.
Harambe's point seems to be that for the majority of people, particularly the most vulnerable parts of the population, it was the vaccine that moved them out of the covid naive pool. This is also a reasonable observation, but it's different than "virtually all of the population".
For myself, I'm happy enough to acknowledge the Omicron wave as marking the end of the pandemic/beginning of the endemic phase of covid with the caveat that the Omicron wave killed something like 180,000 Americans and disproportionately affected younger and unvaccinated parts of the population.
What’s missing is a true analysis comparing natural immunity against a strain prior to Omicron (let’s call it Delta) versus vaccination prior to Omicron along with Omicron infection itself. Many researchers and the CDC both, eventually, acknowledged that natural infection was just as good as two vaccinations and maybe even better. Omicron was the booster in these groups. I’m not talking about for high risk groups (the minority). But for low risk groups who were either already vaccinated with at least two shots or had already been infected with a prior strain, Omicron essentially then ended the pandemic phase. Their immunity was locked in.
I, for one, would like to see the data comparing immunity derived from two infections, including Omicron, versus say four-five vaccinations. There is no such data. By definition these would be low risk groups as the low hanging fruit is already either vaccinated or knocked off. Where is the data justifying the CDC recommendation for yet another vaccination? To Harambe’s point, strain drift or antigenic drift is almost impossible to vaccinate against and maybe stupid to vaccinate against as it encourages it.
Infection with Omicron after vaccination produces cross-neutralizing antibodies to other variants of concern, whereas this induces a limited response to non-Omicron variants in unvaccinated individuals.
What’s missing is a true analysis comparing natural immunity against a strain prior to Omicron (let’s call it Delta) versus vaccination prior to Omicron along with Omicron infection itself. Many researchers and the CDC both, eventually, acknowledged that natural infection was just as good as two vaccinations and maybe even better. Omicron was the booster in these groups. I’m not talking about for high risk groups (the minority). But for low risk groups who were either already vaccinated with at least two shots or had already been infected with a prior strain, Omicron essentially then ended the pandemic phase. Their immunity was locked in.
I, for one, would like to see the data comparing immunity derived from two infections, including Omicron, versus say four-five vaccinations. There is no such data. By definition these would be low risk groups as the low hanging fruit is already either vaccinated or knocked off. Where is the data justifying the CDC recommendation for yet another vaccination? To Harambe’s point, strain drift or antigenic drift is almost impossible to vaccinate against and maybe stupid to vaccinate against as it encourages it.
Tl;dr vaccines were the important event for population immunity and the end of the pandemic. Omicron was not.
You’re missing my point though. I’m not talking about unvaccinated, previously uninfected hosts who then acquire immunity from Omicron. I'm talking about immunity acquired from an infection before Omicron plus Omicron. Omicron enhanced immunity in either scenario, vaccinated, then breakthrough infection or already infected, then breakthrough infection. Not cross strain recognition from Omicron only but from its predecessors plus Omicron.
”By contrast, Omicron breakthrough infections induce overall higher neutralization titres against all variants of concern. Our results demonstrate that Omicron infection enhances pre-existing immunity elicited by vaccines but, on its own, may not confer broad protection against non-Omicron variants in unvaccinated individuals.”
Tl;dr vaccines were the important event for population immunity and the end of the pandemic. Omicron was not.
You’re missing my point though. I’m not talking about unvaccinated, previously uninfected hosts who then acquire immunity from Omicron. I'm talking about immunity acquired from an infection before Omicron plus Omicron. Omicron enhanced immunity in either scenario, vaccinated, then breakthrough infection or already infected, then breakthrough infection. Not cross strain recognition from Omicron only but from its predecessors plus Omicron.
”By contrast, Omicron breakthrough infections induce overall higher neutralization titres against all variants of concern. Our results demonstrate that Omicron infection enhances pre-existing immunity elicited by vaccines but, on its own, may not confer broad protection against non-Omicron variants in unvaccinated individuals.”
The enhancement from vaccinated -> vaccinated+omicron was very weak compared to unvaccinated -> vaccinated.
Given that a large majority of COVID risk was mitigated by vaccination and Omicron's 'boost' was only a small bump that required previous vaccination, the pandemic was ended by vaccination, not by Omicron.
You’re missing my point though. I’m not talking about unvaccinated, previously uninfected hosts who then acquire immunity from Omicron. I'm talking about immunity acquired from an infection before Omicron plus Omicron. Omicron enhanced immunity in either scenario, vaccinated, then breakthrough infection or already infected, then breakthrough infection. Not cross strain recognition from Omicron only but from its predecessors plus Omicron.
”By contrast, Omicron breakthrough infections induce overall higher neutralization titres against all variants of concern. Our results demonstrate that Omicron infection enhances pre-existing immunity elicited by vaccines but, on its own, may not confer broad protection against non-Omicron variants in unvaccinated individuals.”
The enhancement from vaccinated -> vaccinated+omicron was very weak compared to unvaccinated -> vaccinated.
Given that a large majority of COVID risk was mitigated by vaccination and Omicron's 'boost' was only a small bump that required previous vaccination, the pandemic was ended by vaccination, not by Omicron.
Again, according to that paper you posted, Omicron infection adequately provided cross strain protection after vaccination. Or after prior infection. Was that vaccination or prior infection necessary to allow Omicron infection itself to seal the deal and end the pandemic phase? Yes. Both were necessary.
