Sam Lowry 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.

---

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

---

I've posted the Israel data showing 6-27x greater infection rates among long-vaxxed (outside the 6-month protection window). Other countries are showing the same thing. It's even starting to be reflected in hospitalization rates.

The vaccines have very high protection against INFECTION for about 6 months, after which time they actually increase the odds of INFECTION. You and DC counter with the "long-lasting protection against serious disease" point, which is valid. Vaccines have saved lives. Possibly mine (as I am double-vaxxed). But "serious disease" stats are not driving policy. Infection rates are driving policy.

Data on what I'm referring to is widely available. There's no point in posting it again. You'll ignore it.

There is a reason other countries are starting to drop covid controls........

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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

---

I've posted the Israel data showing 6-27x greater infection rates among long-vaxxed (outside the 6-month protection window). Other countries are showing the same thing. It's even starting to be reflected in hospitalization rates.

The vaccines have very high protection against INFECTION for about 6 months, after which time they actually increase the odds of INFECTION. You and DC counter with the "long-lasting protection against serious disease" point, which is valid. Vaccines have saved lives. Possibly mine (as I am double-vaxxed). But "serious disease" stats are not driving policy. Infection rates are driving policy.

Data on what I'm referring to is widely available. There's no point in posting it again. You'll ignore it.

There is a reason other countries are starting to drop covid controls........

---

Yeah, DC annihilated that claim by showing exactly why the numbers don't say what you think they say. I was assuming you had some new data.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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

---

I've posted the Israel data showing 6-27x greater infection rates among long-vaxxed (outside the 6-month protection window). Other countries are showing the same thing. It's even starting to be reflected in hospitalization rates.

The vaccines have very high protection against INFECTION for about 6 months, after which time they actually increase the odds of INFECTION. You and DC counter with the "long-lasting protection against serious disease" point, which is valid. Vaccines have saved lives. Possibly mine (as I am double-vaxxed). But "serious disease" stats are not driving policy. Infection rates are driving policy.

Data on what I'm referring to is widely available. There's no point in posting it again. You'll ignore it.

There is a reason other countries are starting to drop covid controls........

---

Am I reading this correctly? These studies say omicron infection rates and serious disease.

Third Dose of Pfizer, Moderna Covid-19 Vaccines Offers Strong Protection Against Omicron
CDC analysis shows that boosters are important in maximizing protection against Omicron and Delta variants
Hospitals are seeing significant differences in Omicron-era cases based on a patient's vaccination status.

Vaccines and booster shots offer superior protection from the Delta and Omicron variants, according to three new studies released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The data back up earlier findings supporting booster shots and offer the first comprehensive insight into how vaccines fare against the Omicron variant. In one of the studies published Friday, a CDC analysis found that a third dose of either the vaccine fromPfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE or Moderna Inc. was at least 90% effective against preventing hospitalization from Covid-19 during both the Delta and Omicron periods.
During the Delta period, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization from Covid-19 was 90% from two weeks until about 6 months after dose two, 81% from at least six months after dose two and 94% at least two weeks after a booster dose. When Omicron was dominant, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for the same periods were 81%, 57% and 90%, respectively.
"Those who remain unvaccinated are at significantly higher risk for infection and severe Covid-19 disease,"CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said. "Protection against infection and hospitalization with the Omicron variant is highest for those who are up to date with their vaccination, meaning those who are boosted when they are eligible."
An additional study published in Nature Thursday also supports booster doses, and backs up previous findings from Pfizer and BioNTech showing that a third dose of their Covid-19 vaccine neutralizes Omicron but its two-dose regimen is significantly less effective at blocking the virus.
According to the study published Thursday, two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine provided little neutralizing antibody immunity against Omicron infection even at one month after vaccination, but a third dose offered more than 50% protection against Covid-19.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-wave-eases-in-parts-of-u-s-france-sets-plan-to-relax-curbs-11642770561?mod=Searchresults_pos7&page=1

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam likes to pretend he "wins" arguments, even when he has to change definitions and conditions to tell that story.

Kind of sad. There was a time when Sam was focused on the true condition of things. HIs TDS proved terminal.

---

His modus operandi is well known. Constantly re-framing the argument until it suits his purposes, and then he'll try to play gotcha. I'm sure this little exercise will be no different.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Let's set the parameters. What do you believe my claim is and which paper are you referencing?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

What article are we talking about here?

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Let's set the parameters. What do you believe my claim is and which paper are you referencing?

---

Wait, you don't know what paper he is referencing and you are saying his claim is "false?"

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

---

Not in the article.

And there's the re-frame.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

---

Not in the article.

And there's the re-frame.

---

It's in the paper we were both referring to. As you well know.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: 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.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

---

Not in the article.

And there's the re-frame.

---

It's in the paper we were both referring to. As you well know.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: 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.

---

---

I cited an article. It's not in the article, as you well know.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

---

Not in the article.

And there's the re-frame.

---

It's in the paper we were both referring to. As you well know.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: 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.

---

---

I cited an article. It's not in the article, as you well know.

---

Wow, what a chicken****.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

---

Not in the article.

And there's the re-frame.

---

It's in the paper we were both referring to. As you well know.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: 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.

---

---

I cited an article. It's not in the article, as you well know.

---

Wow, what a chicken****.

---

Poor little trickster.

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

---

Not in the article.

And there's the re-frame.

---

It's in the paper we were both referring to. As you well know.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: 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.

---

---

I cited an article. It's not in the article, as you well know.

---

Wow, what a chicken****.

---

Poor little trickster.

---

Only in your world would reading comprehension look like a trick. But look, if I'm giving remedial English lessons it's only fair I should get paid. At say $10 an hour, $10K should just about cover my investment for the last year.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

---

Not in the article.

And there's the re-frame.

---

It's in the paper we were both referring to. As you well know.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: 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.

---

---

I cited an article. It's not in the article, as you well know.

---

Wow, what a chicken****.

---

Poor little trickster.

---

Only in your world would reading comprehension look like a trick. But look, if I'm giving remedial English lessons it's only fair I should get paid. At say $10 an hour, $10K should just about cover my investment for the last year.

---

Has nothing to do with reading comprehension, spinmeister. You of course knew that I didn't cite a paper but instead cited a Harvard article summarizing a study. Another one of your attempted gotcha moments.

If you really are that hard up for cash, we could start a go fund me campaign to pay you not to post. I'm sure everybody's tired of your authoritarian propaganda and would be happy to contribute.

Btw you get your fourth booster yet? And why didn't you get your kids jabbed? Seems very irresponsible of you

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.

---

Hmm...

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.

---

Hmm...

---

Perhaps it would just be easier if you linked to the post where I cited the paper.

Perhaps we could wager a little money on it? I know how you like bets.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

You already did. See above.

---

$1,000. What say you?

---

What the hell are you talking about?

---

You like bets, right? I challenged you to a bet re: vaccine protection without neutralizing antibodies.

---

If you want to post something feel free. I'm sure if you search long enough you'll find something to support your narrative.

---

You already found it.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: False.

---

$1,000 says you're wrong.

---

Got an even better idea, spinmeister. I'm right you can't post your bull**** propaganda for a month. I win I take a month long break from making you look silly. What do you say?

---

I like mine better. Let's put your money where your mouth is.

---

I'll only do it for $10,000. Not listening to your bull**** is at least worth that.

---

Done. From your article:

Quote:

---

Limitations of the study

Although previous studies that used pseudovirus neutralization to model the sensitivity of replicating SARS-CoV-2 to neutralizing antibodies have shown excellent correlations, it is possible that the mutations in the Omicron spike protein may cause the Omicron pseudovirus to behave differently than previously tested variants. However, recent reports have demonstrated similar loss of neutralizing activity by vaccinee sera against intact Omicron coronavirus. In addition, while we confirmed that ACE2 expression is required for infection of 293T cells, natural target cells in the respiratory tract may express alternative receptors or attachment factors that facilitate infection and are not adequately modeled in our system. In addition, our cohort was cross-sectional and not longitudinal, which limits our ability to estimate changes in neutralization titers over time across single individuals. Furthermore, we did not assess other antibody-mediated functions, such as complement deposition, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, or antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis, which may contribute to protection even in the absence of neutralizing antibodies. We did not assess the role of vaccine-elicited cellular immune responses mediated by T cells and NK cells, which are likely to play a key role in disease prevention for vaccine recipients.

---

---

Not in the article.

And there's the re-frame.

---

It's in the paper we were both referring to. As you well know.

Quote:

---

MOTHRA: 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.

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

MOTHRA: 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.

---

---

I cited an article. It's not in the article, as you well know.

---

Wow, what a chicken****.

---

Many reasonable people say similar things about you, Sam.

Internet Tough Guy 3.0, that's Sam "Brandon" Lowry

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.

---

Hmm...

---

Perhaps it would just be easier if you linked to the post where I cited the paper.

---

Sure...

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/101437/replies/2574060

Sam Lowry 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.

---

Hmm...

---

Perhaps it would just be easier if you linked to the post where I cited the paper.

---

Sure...

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/101437/replies/2574060

---

Nope.

And of course...

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/101437/replies/2575209

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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

---

I've posted the Israel data showing 6-27x greater infection rates among long-vaxxed (outside the 6-month protection window). Other countries are showing the same thing. It's even starting to be reflected in hospitalization rates.

The vaccines have very high protection against INFECTION for about 6 months, after which time they actually increase the odds of INFECTION. You and DC counter with the "long-lasting protection against serious disease" point, which is valid. Vaccines have saved lives. Possibly mine (as I am double-vaxxed). But "serious disease" stats are not driving policy. Infection rates are driving policy.

Data on what I'm referring to is widely available. There's no point in posting it again. You'll ignore it.

There is a reason other countries are starting to drop covid controls........

---

Am I reading this correctly? These studies say omicron infection rates and serious disease.

Third Dose of Pfizer, Moderna Covid-19 Vaccines Offers Strong Protection Against Omicron
CDC analysis shows that boosters are important in maximizing protection against Omicron and Delta variants
Hospitals are seeing significant differences in Omicron-era cases based on a patient's vaccination status.

Vaccines and booster shots offer superior protection from the Delta and Omicron variants, according to three new studies released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The data back up earlier findings supporting booster shots and offer the first comprehensive insight into how vaccines fare against the Omicron variant. In one of the studies published Friday, a CDC analysis found that a third dose of either the vaccine fromPfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE or Moderna Inc. was at least 90% effective against preventing hospitalization from Covid-19 during both the Delta and Omicron periods.
During the Delta period, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization from Covid-19 was 90% from two weeks until about 6 months after dose two, 81% from at least six months after dose two and 94% at least two weeks after a booster dose. When Omicron was dominant, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for the same periods were 81%, 57% and 90%, respectively.
"Those who remain unvaccinated are at significantly higher risk for infection and severe Covid-19 disease,"CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said. "Protection against infection and hospitalization with the Omicron variant is highest for those who are up to date with their vaccination, meaning those who are boosted when they are eligible."
An additional study published in Nature Thursday also supports booster doses, and backs up previous findings from Pfizer and BioNTech showing that a third dose of their Covid-19 vaccine neutralizes Omicron but its two-dose regimen is significantly less effective at blocking the virus.
According to the study published Thursday, two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine provided little neutralizing antibody immunity against Omicron infection even at one month after vaccination, but a third dose offered more than 50% protection against Covid-19.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-wave-eases-in-parts-of-u-s-france-sets-plan-to-relax-curbs-11642770561?mod=Searchresults_pos7&page=1

---

What you posted in blue does not address the point you are contesting. Yes, the 2-dose regimen is basically ineffective against Omicron infection. It's also completely ineffective against infection by all the other strains 6-8 months after vaccination. (Pharma and policymakers knew this 12 months ago, but did not disclose, instead asserting vaccines would protect you forever....but I digress....)

2nd, your post also shows that the 3rd boost, necessary because of the half-life of the first 2 shots, does not return one to 90% protection levels. It has no impact on Omicron, and only bumps you back to 50% (again, from your post) against other strains. Further, the 3rd shot loses roughly 40% of its punch every month....ergo why we see the talk about quarterly boosters.

The vaccines have utility. They protect the old and the sick from infection for short periods of time. And they reduce death rates for everyone. BUT AFTER 6-8 MONTHS, THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWS VACCINES INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF INFECTION VERSUS PEOPLE WITH NATURAL IMMUNITY. that guarantees continuing high infection rates, which are the justification for all the federal, state, local controls on human activity.

Flail away, all you want, but you are in a cul-de-sac of diminishing marginal returns.

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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

---

I've posted the Israel data showing 6-27x greater infection rates among long-vaxxed (outside the 6-month protection window). Other countries are showing the same thing. It's even starting to be reflected in hospitalization rates.

The vaccines have very high protection against INFECTION for about 6 months, after which time they actually increase the odds of INFECTION. You and DC counter with the "long-lasting protection against serious disease" point, which is valid. Vaccines have saved lives. Possibly mine (as I am double-vaxxed). But "serious disease" stats are not driving policy. Infection rates are driving policy.

Data on what I'm referring to is widely available. There's no point in posting it again. You'll ignore it.

There is a reason other countries are starting to drop covid controls........

---

Am I reading this correctly? These studies say omicron infection rates and serious disease.

Third Dose of Pfizer, Moderna Covid-19 Vaccines Offers Strong Protection Against Omicron
CDC analysis shows that boosters are important in maximizing protection against Omicron and Delta variants
Hospitals are seeing significant differences in Omicron-era cases based on a patient's vaccination status.

Vaccines and booster shots offer superior protection from the Delta and Omicron variants, according to three new studies released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The data back up earlier findings supporting booster shots and offer the first comprehensive insight into how vaccines fare against the Omicron variant. In one of the studies published Friday, a CDC analysis found that a third dose of either the vaccine fromPfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE or Moderna Inc. was at least 90% effective against preventing hospitalization from Covid-19 during both the Delta and Omicron periods.
During the Delta period, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization from Covid-19 was 90% from two weeks until about 6 months after dose two, 81% from at least six months after dose two and 94% at least two weeks after a booster dose. When Omicron was dominant, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for the same periods were 81%, 57% and 90%, respectively.
"Those who remain unvaccinated are at significantly higher risk for infection and severe Covid-19 disease,"CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said. "Protection against infection and hospitalization with the Omicron variant is highest for those who are up to date with their vaccination, meaning those who are boosted when they are eligible."
An additional study published in Nature Thursday also supports booster doses, and backs up previous findings from Pfizer and BioNTech showing that a third dose of their Covid-19 vaccine neutralizes Omicron but its two-dose regimen is significantly less effective at blocking the virus.
According to the study published Thursday, two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine provided little neutralizing antibody immunity against Omicron infection even at one month after vaccination, but a third dose offered more than 50% protection against Covid-19.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-wave-eases-in-parts-of-u-s-france-sets-plan-to-relax-curbs-11642770561?mod=Searchresults_pos7&page=1

---

What you posted in blue does not address the point you are contesting. Yes, the 2-dose regimen is basically ineffective against Omicron infection. It's also completely ineffective against infection by all the other strains 6-8 months after vaccination. (Pharma and policymakers knew this 12 months ago, but did not disclose, instead asserting vaccines would protect you forever....but I digress....)

2nd, your post also shows that the 3rd boost, necessary because of the half-life of the first 2 shots, does not return one to 90% protection levels. It has no impact on Omicron, and only bumps you back to 50% (again, from your post) against other strains. Further, the 3rd shot loses roughly 40% of its punch every month....ergo why we see the talk about quarterly boosters.

The vaccines have utility. They protect the old and the sick from infection for short periods of time. And they reduce death rates for everyone. BUT AFTER 6-8 MONTHS, THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWS VACCINES INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF INFECTION VERSUS PEOPLE WITH NATURAL IMMUNITY. that guarantees continuing high infection rates, which are the justification for all the federal, state, local controls on human activity.

Flail away, all you want, but you are in a cul-de-sac of diminishing marginal returns.

---

You appear to have some flawed logic and some incorrect information in you post above.

D. C. Bear said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry 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.

---

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

---

I've posted the Israel data showing 6-27x greater infection rates among long-vaxxed (outside the 6-month protection window). Other countries are showing the same thing. It's even starting to be reflected in hospitalization rates.

The vaccines have very high protection against INFECTION for about 6 months, after which time they actually increase the odds of INFECTION. You and DC counter with the "long-lasting protection against serious disease" point, which is valid. Vaccines have saved lives. Possibly mine (as I am double-vaxxed). But "serious disease" stats are not driving policy. Infection rates are driving policy.

Data on what I'm referring to is widely available. There's no point in posting it again. You'll ignore it.

There is a reason other countries are starting to drop covid controls........

---

Am I reading this correctly? These studies say omicron infection rates and serious disease.

Third Dose of Pfizer, Moderna Covid-19 Vaccines Offers Strong Protection Against Omicron
CDC analysis shows that boosters are important in maximizing protection against Omicron and Delta variants
Hospitals are seeing significant differences in Omicron-era cases based on a patient's vaccination status.

Vaccines and booster shots offer superior protection from the Delta and Omicron variants, according to three new studies released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The data back up earlier findings supporting booster shots and offer the first comprehensive insight into how vaccines fare against the Omicron variant. In one of the studies published Friday, a CDC analysis found that a third dose of either the vaccine fromPfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE or Moderna Inc. was at least 90% effective against preventing hospitalization from Covid-19 during both the Delta and Omicron periods.
During the Delta period, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization from Covid-19 was 90% from two weeks until about 6 months after dose two, 81% from at least six months after dose two and 94% at least two weeks after a booster dose. When Omicron was dominant, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization for the same periods were 81%, 57% and 90%, respectively.
"Those who remain unvaccinated are at significantly higher risk for infection and severe Covid-19 disease,"CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said. "Protection against infection and hospitalization with the Omicron variant is highest for those who are up to date with their vaccination, meaning those who are boosted when they are eligible."
An additional study published in Nature Thursday also supports booster doses, and backs up previous findings from Pfizer and BioNTech showing that a third dose of their Covid-19 vaccine neutralizes Omicron but its two-dose regimen is significantly less effective at blocking the virus.
According to the study published Thursday, two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine provided little neutralizing antibody immunity against Omicron infection even at one month after vaccination, but a third dose offered more than 50% protection against Covid-19.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-wave-eases-in-parts-of-u-s-france-sets-plan-to-relax-curbs-11642770561?mod=Searchresults_pos7&page=1

---

What you posted in blue does not address the point you are contesting. Yes, the 2-dose regimen is basically ineffective against Omicron infection. It's also completely ineffective against infection by all the other strains 6-8 months after vaccination. (Pharma and policymakers knew this 12 months ago, but did not disclose, instead asserting vaccines would protect you forever....but I digress....)

2nd, your post also shows that the 3rd boost, necessary because of the half-life of the first 2 shots, does not return one to 90% protection levels. It has no impact on Omicron, and only bumps you back to 50% (again, from your post) against other strains. Further, the 3rd shot loses roughly 40% of its punch every month....ergo why we see the talk about quarterly boosters.

The vaccines have utility. They protect the old and the sick from infection for short periods of time. And they reduce death rates for everyone. BUT AFTER 6-8 MONTHS, THE DATA CLEARLY SHOWS VACCINES INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF INFECTION VERSUS PEOPLE WITH NATURAL IMMUNITY. that guarantees continuing high infection rates, which are the justification for all the federal, state, local controls on human activity.

Flail away, all you want, but you are in a cul-de-sac of diminishing marginal returns.

---

You appear to have some flawed logic and some incorrect information in you post above.

---

elaborate..

Learn what "cite" means.

Mothra said:

---

Learn what "cite" means.

---

Learn what honesty means. DC and I have both used "cite" in a loose sense throughout the thread, and you've obviously understood and ratified the usage in your responses. It's hard to believe you'd want to further embarrass yourself with more semantic weaseling, but no doubt you will. The last word is yours.

Getting back on topic...nothing you've cited, quoted, or otherwise referred to supports your lie that vaccines have zero effect against Omicron. The Cell article states that boosters induce neutralizing immunity and that even the traditional two doses likely provide some protection. The other study involved only seven people and gave no indication of how many others might not have been infected. By its very design, there's no way it could prove what you claim. And of course what has gone unaddressed is the study I linked, an analysis of 78,000 patients, which found 30% effectiveness. As I said, this presents no contradiction. If the vaccine is only 30% effective, it's no surprise to find seven cases where it didn't work. But the weight of evidence presented on all sides here leads to one conclusion. Vaccines have an effect.