Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

Your argument is dubious to anyone who can understand what they are reading. Again, one of the articles you quoted is a lab study looking at antibodies. It does not look at the effect of any other part of the immune system. Because it is a lab study that looks at a portion of the immune response to a proxy for the actual virus, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from that study about whether the vaccines, in any dose, would reduce the chances of becoming infected with a particular variant under real world conditions.

The other study you cited is a case study of seven Germans in South Africa. It not not allow us to draw the conclusions you want to draw from it.

---

What is dubious is to suggest that a vaccine, whose goal is to stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies to fight COVID, provides protection despite the fact the antibodies it creates are not capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant.

---

The paper you cited not only suggests it but says it is likely.

---

False. The paper said vaccine PLUS BOOSTERS may prevent the spread, though it published no data in support of that position. And of course the South African study suggested otherwise.

Mothra said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

From yesterday:
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/

Vaccines are very good protection against infection for about 6-8 months, at which time data show they clearly become a liability against infection. They do continue to provide improved outcomes against serious disease.

DC chooses to maintain laser focus on the 2nd sentence, and studiously ignores the 1st.

---

I know many people who got Covid 2x. Natural immunity doesn't do much either. We are f'd until a better vaccine come out.

---

Except that second infections, like infections among vaccinated individuals, tend not to have anything near the level of seriousness of first infections of unvaccinated individuals.

---

Well my friends now that got it 6 mos ago have it much worse than the first time. They are both unvaccinated.

Like you, getting vaccinated is a no brainer imo.

---

Published studies out in the last few days show that natural immunity is superior to any protection afforded by the vaccine. It is one of the reasons why countries are starting to ease vaccine and mask mandates.

Of course, my doctor has been saying this from the very beginning.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/natural-immunity-was-more-potent-than-vaccines-during-us-delta-wave-study/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/01/20/natural-immunity-against-covid-lowered-risk-more-than-vaccines-against-delta-variant-new-s

When you are dealing with a virus that mutates constantly, vaccines will become outdated pretty quickly.

---

Infection acquired immunity may be superior to vaccine acquired immunity after you have been infected and recovered. However, vaccine acquired immunity orders of magnitude better before your have been infected and, if you should happen to get infected after vaccination, you are orders of magnitude less likely to become seriously ill or die than if you get and initial infection without being vaccinated.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

From yesterday:
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/

Vaccines are very good protection against infection for about 6-8 months, at which time data show they clearly become a liability against infection. They do continue to provide improved outcomes against serious disease.

DC chooses to maintain laser focus on the 2nd sentence, and studiously ignores the 1st.

---

I know many people who got Covid 2x. Natural immunity doesn't do much either. We are f'd until a better vaccine come out.

---

Except that second infections, like infections among vaccinated individuals, tend not to have anything near the level of seriousness of first infections of unvaccinated individuals.

---

Well my friends now that got it 6 mos ago have it much worse than the first time. They are both unvaccinated.

Like you, getting vaccinated is a no brainer imo.

---

Published studies out in the last few days show that natural immunity is superior to any protection afforded by the vaccine. It is one of the reasons why countries are starting to ease vaccine and mask mandates.

Of course, my doctor has been saying this from the very beginning.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/natural-immunity-was-more-potent-than-vaccines-during-us-delta-wave-study/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/01/20/natural-immunity-against-covid-lowered-risk-more-than-vaccines-against-delta-variant-new-s

When you are dealing with a virus that mutates constantly, vaccines will become outdated pretty quickly.

---

Infection acquired immunity may be superior to vaccine acquired immunity after you have been infected and recovered. However, vaccine acquired immunity orders of magnitude better before your have been infected and, if you should happen to get infected after vaccination, you are orders of magnitude less likely to become seriously ill or die than if you get and initial infection without being vaccinated.

---

Omicron undermines the materiality of your valid point, which still ignores the long-term consequences of the vaccines - higher rates of infections, which is being used as the primary justification for sovereign power intervention in the economy.

The more people we vaccinate, the greater number of cases we will have, long term.

What a great way to keep the pandemic (and all the govt controls which attend it) alive.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

Your argument is dubious to anyone who can understand what they are reading. Again, one of the articles you quoted is a lab study looking at antibodies. It does not look at the effect of any other part of the immune system. Because it is a lab study that looks at a portion of the immune response to a proxy for the actual virus, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from that study about whether the vaccines, in any dose, would reduce the chances of becoming infected with a particular variant under real world conditions.

The other study you cited is a case study of seven Germans in South Africa. It not not allow us to draw the conclusions you want to draw from it.

---

What is dubious is to suggest that a vaccine, whose goal is to stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies to fight COVID, provides protection despite the fact the antibodies it creates are not capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant.

---

The paper you cited not only suggests it but says it is likely.

---

False. The paper said vaccine PLUS BOOSTERS may prevent the spread, though it published no data in support of that position. And of course the South African study suggested otherwise.

---

Not gonna argue. Learn to read.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. %A0Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. %A0The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. %A0It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

From yesterday:
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/

Vaccines are very good protection against infection for about 6-8 months, at which time data show they clearly become a liability against infection. %A0 %A0 They do continue to provide improved outcomes against serious disease.

DC chooses to maintain laser focus on the 2nd sentence, and studiously ignores the 1st.

---

I know many people who got Covid 2x. Natural immunity doesn't do much either. We are f'd until a better vaccine come out.

---

Except that second infections, like infections among vaccinated individuals, tend not to have anything near the level of seriousness of first infections of unvaccinated individuals.

---

Well my friends now that got it 6 mos ago have it much worse than the first time. They are both unvaccinated.

Like you, getting vaccinated is a no brainer imo.

---

Published studies out in the last few days show that natural immunity is superior to any protection afforded by the vaccine. %A0It is one of the reasons why countries are starting to ease vaccine and mask mandates.

Of course, my doctor has been saying this from the very beginning.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/natural-immunity-was-more-potent-than-vaccines-during-us-delta-wave-study/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/01/20/natural-immunity-against-covid-lowered-risk-more-than-vaccines-against-delta-variant-new-s

When you are dealing with a virus that mutates constantly, vaccines will become outdated pretty quickly.

---

Infection acquired immunity may be superior to vaccine acquired immunity after you have been infected and recovered. However, vaccine acquired immunity orders of magnitude better before your have been infected and, if you should happen to get infected after vaccination, you are orders of magnitude less likely to become seriously ill or die than if you get and initial infection without being vaccinated.

---

I was responding to the poster's point regarding his friends who recently got COVID.%A0 Those who have had it and recovered have better immunity than those who did not.%A0

whiterock said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

From yesterday:
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/

Vaccines are very good protection against infection for about 6-8 months, at which time data show they clearly become a liability against infection. They do continue to provide improved outcomes against serious disease.

DC chooses to maintain laser focus on the 2nd sentence, and studiously ignores the 1st.

---

I know many people who got Covid 2x. Natural immunity doesn't do much either. We are f'd until a better vaccine come out.

---

Except that second infections, like infections among vaccinated individuals, tend not to have anything near the level of seriousness of first infections of unvaccinated individuals.

---

Well my friends now that got it 6 mos ago have it much worse than the first time. They are both unvaccinated.

Like you, getting vaccinated is a no brainer imo.

---

Published studies out in the last few days show that natural immunity is superior to any protection afforded by the vaccine. It is one of the reasons why countries are starting to ease vaccine and mask mandates.

Of course, my doctor has been saying this from the very beginning.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/natural-immunity-was-more-potent-than-vaccines-during-us-delta-wave-study/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/01/20/natural-immunity-against-covid-lowered-risk-more-than-vaccines-against-delta-variant-new-s

When you are dealing with a virus that mutates constantly, vaccines will become outdated pretty quickly.

---

Infection acquired immunity may be superior to vaccine acquired immunity after you have been infected and recovered. However, vaccine acquired immunity orders of magnitude better before your have been infected and, if you should happen to get infected after vaccination, you are orders of magnitude less likely to become seriously ill or die than if you get and initial infection without being vaccinated.

---

Omicron undermines the materiality of your valid point, which still ignores the long-term consequences of the vaccines - higher rates of infections, which is being used as the primary justification for sovereign power intervention in the economy.

The more people we vaccinate, the greater number of cases we will have, long term.

What a great way to keep the pandemic (and all the govt controls which attend it) alive.

---

Omicron does not undermine anything I have said.

You want things to be true that are not really supported by data because you don't like the "government intervention." I don't like the "government intervention," either, but I don't think the "government intervention" is justified by by what the data do support, and it would take something much, much greater to actually justify intervention of that kind,

You are going to need to show some proof that vaccines "lead to higher infection rates."

Also consider that if "everybody gets it," (in the long term) we are going to have the same number of cases eventually. However, with vaccines we are going to have many fewer serious cases and deaths from the virus and delaying cases provides more time for better therapeutics to be developed.

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. %A0Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. %A0The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. %A0It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

From yesterday:
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/

Vaccines are very good protection against infection for about 6-8 months, at which time data show they clearly become a liability against infection. %A0 %A0 They do continue to provide improved outcomes against serious disease.

DC chooses to maintain laser focus on the 2nd sentence, and studiously ignores the 1st.

---

I know many people who got Covid 2x. Natural immunity doesn't do much either. We are f'd until a better vaccine come out.

---

Except that second infections, like infections among vaccinated individuals, tend not to have anything near the level of seriousness of first infections of unvaccinated individuals.

---

Well my friends now that got it 6 mos ago have it much worse than the first time. They are both unvaccinated.

Like you, getting vaccinated is a no brainer imo.

---

Published studies out in the last few days show that natural immunity is superior to any protection afforded by the vaccine. %A0It is one of the reasons why countries are starting to ease vaccine and mask mandates.

Of course, my doctor has been saying this from the very beginning.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/natural-immunity-was-more-potent-than-vaccines-during-us-delta-wave-study/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/01/20/natural-immunity-against-covid-lowered-risk-more-than-vaccines-against-delta-variant-new-s

When you are dealing with a virus that mutates constantly, vaccines will become outdated pretty quickly.

---

Infection acquired immunity may be superior to vaccine acquired immunity after you have been infected and recovered. However, vaccine acquired immunity orders of magnitude better before your have been infected and, if you should happen to get infected after vaccination, you are orders of magnitude less likely to become seriously ill or die than if you get and initial infection without being vaccinated.

---

I was responding to the poster's point regarding his friends who recently got COVID.%A0 Those who have had it and recovered have better immunity than those who did not.%A0

---

Those who have it and don't recover are 100 percent immune. They're dead.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. %A0Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. %A0The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. %A0It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

From yesterday:
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/

Vaccines are very good protection against infection for about 6-8 months, at which time data show they clearly become a liability against infection. %A0 %A0 They do continue to provide improved outcomes against serious disease.

DC chooses to maintain laser focus on the 2nd sentence, and studiously ignores the 1st.

---

I know many people who got Covid 2x. Natural immunity doesn't do much either. We are f'd until a better vaccine come out.

---

Except that second infections, like infections among vaccinated individuals, tend not to have anything near the level of seriousness of first infections of unvaccinated individuals.

---

Well my friends now that got it 6 mos ago have it much worse than the first time. They are both unvaccinated.

Like you, getting vaccinated is a no brainer imo.

---

Published studies out in the last few days show that natural immunity is superior to any protection afforded by the vaccine. %A0It is one of the reasons why countries are starting to ease vaccine and mask mandates.

Of course, my doctor has been saying this from the very beginning.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/natural-immunity-was-more-potent-than-vaccines-during-us-delta-wave-study/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/01/20/natural-immunity-against-covid-lowered-risk-more-than-vaccines-against-delta-variant-new-s

When you are dealing with a virus that mutates constantly, vaccines will become outdated pretty quickly.

---

Infection acquired immunity may be superior to vaccine acquired immunity after you have been infected and recovered. However, vaccine acquired immunity orders of magnitude better before your have been infected and, if you should happen to get infected after vaccination, you are orders of magnitude less likely to become seriously ill or die than if you get and initial infection without being vaccinated.

---

I was responding to the poster's point regarding his friends who recently got COVID.%A0 Those who have had it and recovered have better immunity than those who did not.%A0

---

Those who have it and don't recover are 100 percent immune. They're dead.

---

Which is why I suggest those with co-morbidities or in an age range that is in danger should get the jab, in consultation with their physician. And learn about therapeutics that help.

Ghostrider said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

From yesterday:
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/

Vaccines are very good protection against infection for about 6-8 months, at which time data show they clearly become a liability against infection. They do continue to provide improved outcomes against serious disease.

DC chooses to maintain laser focus on the 2nd sentence, and studiously ignores the 1st.

---

I know many people who got Covid 2x. Natural immunity doesn't do much either. We are f'd until a better vaccine come out.

---

I know people that have had all 3 shots and been infected twice now. I have had two shots and been inflected, once verified, another time such a mild cold I didn't check to see what it was, likely Covid.

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta..

---

Yes correct, virtually all my friends almost all whom have had the shot are now getting Omicron, thankfully it is very mild for otherwise healthy individuals.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Ghostrider said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. %A0Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. %A0The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. %A0It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

From yesterday:
https://fee.org/articles/cdc-natural-immunity-offered-stronger-protection-against-covid-than-vaccines-during-delta-wave/

Vaccines are very good protection against infection for about 6-8 months, at which time data show they clearly become a liability against infection. %A0 %A0 They do continue to provide improved outcomes against serious disease.

DC chooses to maintain laser focus on the 2nd sentence, and studiously ignores the 1st.

---

I know many people who got Covid 2x. Natural immunity doesn't do much either. We are f'd until a better vaccine come out.

---

Except that second infections, like infections among vaccinated individuals, tend not to have anything near the level of seriousness of first infections of unvaccinated individuals.

---

Well my friends now that got it 6 mos ago have it much worse than the first time. They are both unvaccinated.

Like you, getting vaccinated is a no brainer imo.

---

Published studies out in the last few days show that natural immunity is superior to any protection afforded by the vaccine. %A0It is one of the reasons why countries are starting to ease vaccine and mask mandates.

Of course, my doctor has been saying this from the very beginning.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/natural-immunity-was-more-potent-than-vaccines-during-us-delta-wave-study/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/01/20/natural-immunity-against-covid-lowered-risk-more-than-vaccines-against-delta-variant-new-s

When you are dealing with a virus that mutates constantly, vaccines will become outdated pretty quickly.

---

Infection acquired immunity may be superior to vaccine acquired immunity after you have been infected and recovered. However, vaccine acquired immunity orders of magnitude better before your have been infected and, if you should happen to get infected after vaccination, you are orders of magnitude less likely to become seriously ill or die than if you get and initial infection without being vaccinated.

---

I was responding to the poster's point regarding his friends who recently got COVID.%A0 Those who have had it and recovered have better immunity than those who did not.%A0

---

Those who have it and don't recover are 100 percent immune. They're dead.

---

The same could be said for those with pancreatic cancer.

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

I assume you mean early hotspots of omicron are playing out much differently, and they are. His point, as he stated, was to include pre-omicron. The point still stands, however, that the way to tell whether the vaccine prevents infections is to look at a comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, not at a comparison of groups combining vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. We could find, for example, that the case rate for omicron is not different between the two populations or that the case rate among the vaccinated individuals would be higher. (This is not the case so far, as unvaccinated individuals remain more likely to get some form of COVID than vaccinated ones).

Todays update: Israel, where many received 3rd and 4th boosters, reports 69,104 new Covid cases. The country has the highest daily cases per capita globally now..

WHO Chief Scientist: "...there's no evidence right now that healthy children, or healthy adolescents, need boosters. No evidence at all."

Look closely at the labeling of the bars..

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

Your argument is dubious to anyone who can understand what they are reading. Again, one of the articles you quoted is a lab study looking at antibodies. It does not look at the effect of any other part of the immune system. Because it is a lab study that looks at a portion of the immune response to a proxy for the actual virus, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from that study about whether the vaccines, in any dose, would reduce the chances of becoming infected with a particular variant under real world conditions.

The other study you cited is a case study of seven Germans in South Africa. It not not allow us to draw the conclusions you want to draw from it.

---

What is dubious is to suggest that a vaccine, whose goal is to stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies to fight COVID, provides protection despite the fact the antibodies it creates are not capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant.

---

The paper you cited not only suggests it but says it is likely.

---

False. The paper said vaccine PLUS BOOSTERS may prevent the spread, though it published no data in support of that position. And of course the South African study suggested otherwise.

---

Not gonna argue. Learn to read.

---

I know it must suck when people don't buy your bull*****

D. C. Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

I assume you mean early hotspots of omicron are playing out much differently, and they are. His point, as he stated, was to include pre-omicron. The point still stands, however, that the way to tell whether the vaccine prevents infections is to look at a comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, not at a comparison of groups combining vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. We could find, for example, that the case rate for omicron is not different between the two populations or that the case rate among the vaccinated individuals would be higher. (This is not the case so far, as unvaccinated individuals remain more likely to get some form of COVID than vaccinated ones).

---

The Texas DHS report has over 500,000 fewer cases than the CDC Tracker Data for the period it's reporting on. Just FYI. Interesting graphic is that there's a flat period of case growth during the time of vaccination growth in Texas (late Spring/Summer) with a huge spike before wide spread vaccination and at the end and moving forward past the reporting period. As the population shifts to more vaccinated than unvaccinated, the ratios they used "cases per X" will shift as well. Which is why this explanation of their rate calculation makes little sense.

From the report:

Rate Calculations

The fully vaccinated population is defined as the number of cases who are determined to be fully vaccinated in Texas in the specified age group at the start of the time period.

The unvaccinated population is defined by subtracting the number of fully vaccinated for the specified age group and time period from the entire Texas state population 12 years and older

The vaccination ratios need to be looked at to assess actual population. They seem to default in this to Immtrac counts vs everyone else.

D. C. Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

I assume you mean early hotspots of omicron are playing out much differently, and they are. His point, as he stated, was to include pre-omicron. The point still stands, however, that the way to tell whether the vaccine prevents infections is to look at a comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, not at a comparison of groups combining vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. We could find, for example, that the case rate for omicron is not different between the two populations or that the case rate among the vaccinated individuals would be higher. (This is not the case so far, as unvaccinated individuals remain more likely to get some form of COVID than vaccinated ones).

---

Booster shots in U.S. have strongly protected against severe disease from omicron variant, CDC studies show


Vaccine boosters provide robust protection against severe disease from the omicron variant in the United States, according to three reports released Friday that offer real-world data showing the shots are effective at keeping vaccinated people out of the hospital.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/

$1,000 says you're wrong.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

Your argument is dubious to anyone who can understand what they are reading. Again, one of the articles you quoted is a lab study looking at antibodies. It does not look at the effect of any other part of the immune system. Because it is a lab study that looks at a portion of the immune response to a proxy for the actual virus, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from that study about whether the vaccines, in any dose, would reduce the chances of becoming infected with a particular variant under real world conditions.

The other study you cited is a case study of seven Germans in South Africa. It not not allow us to draw the conclusions you want to draw from it.

---

What is dubious is to suggest that a vaccine, whose goal is to stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies to fight COVID, provides protection despite the fact the antibodies it creates are not capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant.

---

The paper you cited not only suggests it but says it is likely.

---

False. The paper said vaccine PLUS BOOSTERS may prevent the spread, though it published no data in support of that position. And of course the South African study suggested otherwise.

---

Not gonna argue. Learn to read.

---

I know it must suck when people don't buy your bull*****

---

You would certainly know that given the amount you spread.

Sam Lowry said:

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Nice try Brandon, we've seen how you define 'false', 'wrong' and so on.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Nice try Brandon, we've seen how you define 'false', 'wrong' and so on.

---

I want to hear from Mothra

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Nice try Brandon, we've seen how you define 'false', 'wrong' and so on.

---

I want to hear from Mothra

---

Pretty sure we already know what Mothra will say, just as we already know what Sam will say.

Most folks haven't said anything new on this topic in the past half-year.

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

…..and all that data occurred during the 6-8 month window where vaccines ARE effective at preventing infections. Ever increasing percentages of the population are now moving beyond that window.

What DC inexplicably insists on ignoring is the data which all show that vaccination INCREASES susceptibility to infection beyond that 6-8 window. That is consequential because it is infection rate which drives federal, state, local policies.

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

…..and all that data occurred during the 6-8 month window where vaccines ARE effective at preventing infections. Ever increasing percentages of the population are now moving beyond that window.

What DC inexplicably insists on ignoring is the data which all show that vaccination INCREASES susceptibility to infection beyond that 6-8 window. That is consequential because it is infection rate which drives federal, state, local policies.

---

How can he ignore it if you won't post it?

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

…..and all that data occurred during the 6-8 month window where vaccines ARE effective at preventing infections. Ever increasing percentages of the population are now moving beyond that window.

What DC inexplicably insists on ignoring is the data which all show that vaccination INCREASES susceptibility to infection beyond that 6-8 window. That is consequential because it is infection rate which drives federal, state, local policies.

---

Booster shots in U.S. have strongly protected against severe disease from omicron variant, CDC studies show

Vaccine boosters provide robust protection against severe disease from the omicron variant in the United States, according to three reports released Friday that offer real-world data showing the shots are effective at keeping vaccinated people out of the hospital.
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/][/url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

I assume you mean early hotspots of omicron are playing out much differently, and they are. His point, as he stated, was to include pre-omicron. The point still stands, however, that the way to tell whether the vaccine prevents infections is to look at a comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, not at a comparison of groups combining vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. We could find, for example, that the case rate for omicron is not different between the two populations or that the case rate among the vaccinated individuals would be higher. (This is not the case so far, as unvaccinated individuals remain more likely to get some form of COVID than vaccinated ones).

---

Booster shots in U.S. have strongly protected against severe disease from omicron variant, CDC studies show


Vaccine boosters provide robust protection against severe disease from the omicron variant in the United States, according to three reports released Friday that offer real-world data showing the shots are effective at keeping vaccinated people out of the hospital.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/

---

As much ambiguity as I see in the data on transmission, which I know you and others like to debate me on, The data has consistently shown significant vaccine impact on COVID severity, and the reduction in hospitalization and death. It's why I'd still say anyone 50 or over is an idiot to not vaccinate.

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

I assume you mean early hotspots of omicron are playing out much differently, and they are. His point, as he stated, was to include pre-omicron. The point still stands, however, that the way to tell whether the vaccine prevents infections is to look at a comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, not at a comparison of groups combining vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. We could find, for example, that the case rate for omicron is not different between the two populations or that the case rate among the vaccinated individuals would be higher. (This is not the case so far, as unvaccinated individuals remain more likely to get some form of COVID than vaccinated ones).

---

Booster shots in U.S. have strongly protected against severe disease from omicron variant, CDC studies show


Vaccine boosters provide robust protection against severe disease from the omicron variant in the United States, according to three reports released Friday that offer real-world data showing the shots are effective at keeping vaccinated people out of the hospital.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/

---

The data has consistently shown significant vaccine impact on COVID severity, and the reduction in hospitalization and death. It's why I'd still say anyone 50 or over is an idiot to not vaccinate.

---

We agree

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The Harvard article certainly supports my statement:

"The results of this study, reported in the journal Cell, indicate that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant."

The second article calls into question whether the booster has any effect and concluded it does not.

---

The first article concluded that the booster did have an effect.

"We detected very little neutralization of the Omicron variant pseudovirus when we used samples taken from people who were recently vaccinated with two doses of mRNA vaccine or one dose of Johnson & Johnson," says Balazs. "But individuals who received three doses of mRNA vaccine had very significant neutralization against the Omicron variant."

Did you read the whole article?

Of course, this is also a lab based study that, according to the article, looked at antibody response. It did not mention any other parts of the immune system.

---

Against severe disease. Not against transmission, which if you will read my post, is what I stated.

---

And now you're just making stuff up.

---

I'm sure the irony of this statement is lost on you.

Does the article I posted show that traditional dosing regimens of COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant or not?

---

Does that same study find significant neutralizing antibodies following a booster? (Yes, it does, which would make your claim that the vaccines do "literally nothing" to stop transmission rather dubious if one assumed that the presence of neutralizing antibodies would lessen transmission, which appears to be an assumption you have made by claiming that the absence of neutralizing antibodies is conclusive evidence that the vaccines do not provide any protection against infection).

---

It's only dubious to those who can't read. The article I quoted says the COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States do not produce antibodies capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant. It appears there is conflicting data on whether the boosters are capable of doing so.

---

Your argument is dubious to anyone who can understand what they are reading. Again, one of the articles you quoted is a lab study looking at antibodies. It does not look at the effect of any other part of the immune system. Because it is a lab study that looks at a portion of the immune response to a proxy for the actual virus, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from that study about whether the vaccines, in any dose, would reduce the chances of becoming infected with a particular variant under real world conditions.

The other study you cited is a case study of seven Germans in South Africa. It not not allow us to draw the conclusions you want to draw from it.

---

What is dubious is to suggest that a vaccine, whose goal is to stimulate your immune system to produce antibodies to fight COVID, provides protection despite the fact the antibodies it creates are not capable of recognizing and neutralizing the Omicron variant.

---

The paper you cited not only suggests it but says it is likely.

---

False. The paper said vaccine PLUS BOOSTERS may prevent the spread, though it published no data in support of that position. And of course the South African study suggested otherwise.

---

Not gonna argue. Learn to read.

---

I know it must suck when people don't buy your bull*****

---

You would certainly know that given the amount you spread.

---

Says the chief vaccine propagandist.

Osodecentx said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

I assume you mean early hotspots of omicron are playing out much differently, and they are. His point, as he stated, was to include pre-omicron. The point still stands, however, that the way to tell whether the vaccine prevents infections is to look at a comparison of vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, not at a comparison of groups combining vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. We could find, for example, that the case rate for omicron is not different between the two populations or that the case rate among the vaccinated individuals would be higher. (This is not the case so far, as unvaccinated individuals remain more likely to get some form of COVID than vaccinated ones).

---

Booster shots in U.S. have strongly protected against severe disease from omicron variant, CDC studies show


Vaccine boosters provide robust protection against severe disease from the omicron variant in the United States, according to three reports released Friday that offer real-world data showing the shots are effective at keeping vaccinated people out of the hospital.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/

---

I don't doubt that the vaccines and boosters have protected against severe disease. I think it would be pretty hard to argue with that data.

The good news is there are other things than vaccines that protect against severe disease. The bad news is the CDC has done it's best to discredit them.

Natural immunity was six times stronger during the delta wave than vaccination, according to a new report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://t.co/LtgpmFxTny

— FOX31 Denver KDVR (@KDVR) January 21, 2022

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Nice try Brandon, we've seen how you define 'false', 'wrong' and so on.

---

I want to hear from Mothra

---

Me too.

You already did. See above.

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

The macro numbers are all you need to review. The studies are theories not confirmations. Statistical outcomes provide the probabilities and trends. This desperate clinging to vaccine efficacy on spread has become comical. Stick with the reductions in hospitalization and death which have statistical support. However we are on a slow regression to the mean there as the category of "breakthrough deaths" is increasing at a rate greater than non-vaxxed deaths which remain consistent comparatively.

---

There is no "clinging" here. It has been readily apparent for some time that omicron spreads much more easily in vaccinated populations than previous variants. However, there is still evidence that the vaccines, particularly among those with boosters, do reduce infections (and not just hospitalizations and deaths) compared with unvaccinated populations. This is what the data say at this point.

It is also apparent that, thankfully, Omicron infections tend to be less severe in general than previous variants, and may be even less severe among vaccinated individuals, as recent Swiss data seems to show.

---

It won't matter because you want to believe what you want to, but I'll give you a simple example, which you're welcome to see the multitude of additional examples in the US or globally. Despite Texas having a vaccination rate 20% lower than New York, Texas also has a 15% lower case (infection) rate than New York and even a lower death rate (significant). Now if you start the analysis from when vaccines began their effect, the case/infection rates remained similar, but the death rates changed comparatively. That's why I've said there has been a statistical impact to severe outcomes since vaccines, but nothing material on infections. See the forest not just some trees they want you to look at.

This includes pre Omicron.

---

It is not a matter of me "believing what I want to." The analysis of the numbers that you offer does not answer whether vaccines prevent infections. To answer that question, one needs to look at the case rates between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. In Texas, it is clear that vaccination status is very strongly associated with infection status.

https://www.dshs.texas.gov/immunize/covid19/data/cases-and-deaths-by-vaccination-status-11082021.pdf

Jan. To Sept. 2021 saw case rate of 14,000 per 100,000 among unvaccinated individuals and 300 per 100,000 among vaccinated individuals. To explain these vastly different case rate by something other than vaccination status is going to be a task that your forrest cannot do. It is going to take some time to see what protection, if any, vaccines (whether two-dose or three) give against omicron infection, but it is clearly much lower than against previous variants based on early data.

---

delta.. early hot spots of delta are playing out much differently

---

…..and all that data occurred during the 6-8 month window where vaccines ARE effective at preventing infections. Ever increasing percentages of the population are now moving beyond that window.

What DC inexplicably insists on ignoring is the data which all show that vaccination INCREASES susceptibility to infection beyond that 6-8 window. That is consequential because it is infection rate which drives federal, state, local policies.

---

Booster shots in U.S. have strongly protected against severe disease from omicron variant, CDC studies show

Vaccine boosters provide robust protection against severe disease from the omicron variant in the United States, according to three reports released Friday that offer real-world data showing the shots are effective at keeping vaccinated people out of the hospital.
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/][/url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/01/21/cdc-studies-booster-shots-omicron/

---

lol. the post proves my point. again, conflating "protects against serious disease" with infection rates.