Just curious, anyone have a plan, or preps for global pandemic?

[Ron Put]

Those who got alternative vaccines might find this interesting:
 

 

[corybroo]

18 hours ago, Ron Put said:

20 hours ago, corybroo said:

World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus on Wednesday said that two Omicron sub-variants, BA.4 and BA.5, were behind the surge in cases in South Africa.

 
Why is anyone talking about "cases?" These variants are asymptomatic or milder than the current flu for most, why is The WHO not sounding a flu warning and calling for flu vaccine mandates?

They're watching cases because after the sentence you selected was this statement "But he said it was "too soon to know whether these new sub-variants can cause more severe disease than other Omicron sub-variants.""  

Are you stating with absolute certainty (asymptomatic or milder than the current flu for most), that new variants do not present any short or long term problems for most (51%?).  What level of risk would most parents find acceptable for their children?  For an aging parent?  Or immune compromised friend?

There are a couple of new variants sweeping S Africa and surging now in the US.  The US is closely watching this Covid surge for clues   My hope was to increase awareness of this and let everyone choose whether to ignore it or hide out in a bunker.

The definition of mild may be similar to the distinction betwee a recession and depression:  If you lose your job, I'd call that a recession but if I lose mine, then it's a depression.

‘Better Than Omicron’ Is Still Pretty Bad

[mccoy]

On 5/6/2022 at 2:08 AM, Ron Put said:

Why is anyone talking about "cases?" These variants are asymptomatic or milder than the current flu for most, why is The WHO not sounding a flu warning and calling for flu vaccine mandates?

This is exactly the point raised by the school of Vincent Racaniello, professor of virology at Columbia and host of a number of channels on virology and so on. The right strategy should be: to avoid serious illness through proper vaccination and proper behavior.  Avoiding being infected is almost an impossibility.

Watching cases may have a monitoring value but not a high practical value.

By the way, I wonder how a superhumanly cunning person like Xi Jin Ping has allowed the recent lockdowns in China to happen. They are highly harmful to the economy, and to people's morale, and are almost ineffective at fighting the spread of the virus, the cost to benefit ratio being incredibly high.

This shows that even the most bright and cunning minds sometimes get it wrong.  Perhaps a solace for the lesser minds like me.

Edited May 7, 2022 by mccoy

[mccoy]

On 5/6/2022 at 2:13 AM, Ron Put said:

He is obviously censoring himself, as the left tried to get him fired from Standford, but it's still very informative:

Ioannidis is one of the practically bright minds in medicine and deserves attentive listening. He has been the target of many attacks during the Covid madness but whatever he says is worth ponderating.

[AlanPater]

6 hours ago, mccoy said:

Ioannidis is one of the practically bright minds in medicine and deserves attentive listening. He has been the target of many attacks during the Covid madness but whatever he says is worth ponderating.

I am surprised at what bad things have happened to bright minds by the pandemic.

What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?
John Ioannidis is one of the most published and influential scientists in the world, someone whose skewering of bad medical research we at SBM have frequently lauded over the years. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since then, Prof. Ioannidis has been publishing dubious studies that minimize the dangers of the coronavirus, shown up in the media to decry “lockdowns,” and, most recently, “punched down”, attacking a graduate student for having criticized him. What happened? Did Prof. Ioannidis change, or was he always like this and I just didn’t see it? Either way, he’s a cautionary tale of how even science watchdogs can fall prey to hubris.
David Gorski on March 29, 2021
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/

[corybroo]

Model finds COVID-19 deaths among elderly may be due to genetic limit on cell division

Your immune system's ability to combat COVID-19, like any infection, largely depends on its ability to replicate the immune cells effective at destroying the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the disease. 

The average person's immune system coasts along pretty good despite this limit until about 50 years old. That's when enough core immune cells, called T cells, have shortened telomeres and cannot quickly clone themselves through cellular division in big enough numbers to attack and clear the COVID-19 virus

Importantly, he added, telomere lengths are inherited from your parents.

"Depending on your parents and very little on how you live, your longevity or, as our paper claims, your response to COVID-19 is a function of who you were when you were born," he said

[I have doubts about the above claim because some interventions appear to modify telomere length.  For example, “Certain lifestyle factors such as smoking, obesity, lack of exercise, and consumption of unhealthy diet can increase the pace of telomere shortening, leading to illness and/or premature death.”  Telomeres, lifestyle, cancer, and aging  CB]

[BrianA]

Interesting, although it isn't mentioned as a lifestyle factor that increases the pace of T cell telomere shortening, I would hypothesize that it seems likely the more times the body is infected such that it has to produce this T cell clonal expansion response, the faster those telomeres would be shortened. Effectively the body may only have a certain number of significant infections it can withstand before the immune system's telomeres are burnt up. Anyone seen a study of this?

[Saul]

It's probably an oversimplification to consider telomere length; there was a conference, in UCLA SF in which CRed people were invited to attend, and meet the Nobel prize winning discoverer of telomerase.

The results:  telomere length of CRonnies is not very different from the general population.  (I think they were studying, I can't remember which, immune cell's telomere length.)

  --  Saul

 

[mccoy]

16 hours ago, AlanPater said:

I am surprised at what bad things have happened to bright minds by the pandemic.

What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?
John Ioannidis is one of the most published and influential scientists in the world, someone whose skewering of bad medical research we at SBM have frequently lauded over the years. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since then, Prof. Ioannidis has been publishing dubious studies that minimize the dangers of the coronavirus, shown up in the media to decry “lockdowns,” and, most recently, “punched down”, attacking a graduate student for having criticized him. What happened? Did Prof. Ioannidis change, or was he always like this and I just didn’t see it? Either way, he’s a cautionary tale of how even science watchdogs can fall prey to hubris.
David Gorski on March 29, 2021
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-john-ioannidis/

It would be interesting to go through all the exchanges but, really, the day is made up of 24 hours, so regretfully I have to renounce.

I'm noticing that many, many people here are getting ill from SARSCOV2, with bland symptoms. It's probably impossible to avoid the infection but so many cases are symptomless.

To me, it's presently the least of the worries I can have. I also ceased to wear a mask, except where it is still mandatory. 

[Ron Put]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:18 PM, corybroo said:

On 5/6/2022 at 12:18 PM, corybroo said:

They're watching cases because after the sentence you selected was this statement "But he said it was "too soon to know whether these new sub-variants can cause more severe disease than other Omicron sub-variants.""  

Are you stating with absolute certainty (asymptomatic or milder than the current flu for most), that new variants do not present any short or long term problems for most (51%?).  What level of risk would most parents find acceptable for their children?  For an aging parent?  Or immune compromised friend? ...

I am not sure what the point of this is. Like all living things, viruses and bacteria evolve, coronaviruses generally less rapidly than most. It’s always “too soon” to know if such mutations can cause more severe diseases, but we don’t usually shut down society or curtail civil liberties based on it. And it’s absurd to even ask if I am “absolutely certain” or “what level of risk would most parents find acceptable for their children” — these are nonsensical questions. Absolute certainty is the domain of religion, not of science, and it is fairly well-established that SARS-2 poses less risk to children than the flu, despite the possibility of that some idiot might be unable to make basic risk assessments and will lock their offspring away.

The data is fuzzy, but generally, Omicron appears to be often asymptomatic in healthy people (India claims 72% are asymptomatic and the reports from South Africa were sort of in line). For comparison, influenza infections are symptomatic in 50% or more of cases.

 

On 5/7/2022 at 9:44 AM, AlanPater said:

On 5/7/2022 at 9:44 AM, AlanPater said:

I am surprised at what bad things have happened to bright minds by the pandemic.

What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?
...

Bright minds do what they always do: They research, make arguments based on such research and engage in debates with other bright minds.

The not-so-bright are the real danger: They are convinced that theirs is the only truth and see those who disagree as evil, to be personally attacked and destroyed, to snuff out their heretical ideas.

It is remarkable how religious in nature the above two “arguments” appear to be. Religious folks rarely address the direct challenges to their faith, they generally simply ignore them. I haven’t seen even an attempt to address the points made by posters here, or by experts like Ioannidis, Kulldorff, Atlas or Bhattacharya. Not even an indication of awareness of their arguments and the data they present.

Most religious folks are not all that well versed in the subject and ignore all disagreeable facts, instead generally defending their faith in one of two ways:

— They attack the source or the person who challenges their faith. Since they are absolutely convinced of the truth of what they believe in, it follows that only evil people reject such self-evident truth, and evil must be destroyed. Thus we have mobs petitioning Stanford to fire Ioannidis or Levitt, writing to demand that grants are withdrawn or denied, and applying pressure on journals that may consider publishing such heresies. AP is very consistent in this manner.

— They flood the medium with passages from their religious sources and from apologists, often irrelevant to the discussion, but affirming their faith and expressing it for the benefit of others nevertheless, as everyone should witness their truth, the only truth, and repetition is common to all religions.

-- They ignore the arguments and facts presented by those who challenge their faith, but ask questions, often inane ones, over and over, demanding answers and then disregarding them, asking new questions and demanding new answers instead.

 

More broadly, there are clear religious veins running through the woke/neo-Marxist wave that flooded the West over the last decade and weaponized and rode the fears of SARS-2 to gain political victories.

Putin managed to pause the self-loathing and self0destructive impulses convulsing the Western democracies, but unfortunately, such pause may be all too brief: Free speech, the foundation of democracy, is under a renewed attack, with the Biden Administration’s announcement (two days after Musk’s Twitter acquisition agreement) that it is markedly broadening the scope and increasing the powers of its Ministry of Truth.

The newly established Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security appears focused on domestic “disinformation” and “malformation” (the latter apparently factual information that does not conform to the prevailing policies). It will “guide” private industry to ensure that only what is officially sanctioned will see the light of the privately-held public squares, effectively circumventing the constitutional free speech protections by using private businesses as proxies. Its newly appointed lead, Nina Jankowicz, just fired the first salvo, calling the parents who challenged critical race theory in Virginia “disinformers.”

Twitter will certainly fall within this revamped Ministry of Truth's domain. And just in case, a bunch of left-wing non-profits are already sending warnings to Twitter's advertisers, threatening them if they advertise under Musk’s ownership.

This is right out of 1984 and it is much, much scarier than SARS-2.

[Gordo]

On 5/7/2022 at 6:19 AM, mccoy said:

I wonder how a superhumanly cunning person like Xi Jin Ping has allowed the recent lockdowns in China to happen

They allowed Communism to happen too, despite the fact that it has failed everywhere its ever been tried 😉

19 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Twitter will certainly fall within this revamped Ministry of Truth's domain. And just in case, a bunch of left-wing non-profits are already sending warnings to Twitter's advertisers, threatening them if they advertise under Musk’s ownership.

Even some on the left are starting to express outrage (good!) : https://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-twitter-censorship-you-failed/amp/

 

[Gordo]

 

[mccoy]

17 hours ago, Gordo said:

They allowed Communism to happen too, despite the fact that it has failed everywhere its ever been tried 😉

That's true, but have you noticed how the renewed communist regime has readily adhered to the free and global market, they are eager to show that a communist nation is better than western democracies are at providing prosperity to the citizens. Even though the citizens are deprived of freedom. 🤐

[Gordo]

6 hours ago, mccoy said:

the renewed communist regime has readily adhered to the free and global market, they are eager to show that a communist nation is better than western democracies are at providing prosperity to the citizens

And yet Hong Kong (i.e China without communism) and Taiwan (sort of China without communism) are FAR more prosperous.  And the median income in China is considered far below the poverty line in the US.  Hmmmm...

[mccoy]

22 hours ago, Gordo said:

And the median income in China is considered far below the poverty line in the US.  Hmmmm...

I don't know if any direct comparisons are possible but they have a long way to go yet. But while America is speaking about intersectionality and gender neutrality and Europe is following suit, they are busy colonizing Africa and South America. Perhaps the war in Ukraine has been useful as a wake-up call. 

[Gordo]

On 5/11/2022 at 4:10 PM, mccoy said:

they are busy colonizing Africa and South America

Hope that is mutually beneficial but already there are reports of exploitation and corruption.  And they have badly mismanaged their domestic economy by restricting capital markets and causing extreme malinvestment in housing.  It will be interesting to see what happens next...

 

In the meantime, zero covid policy is going off the rails:

 

[Gordo]

Wow, this is interesting, it is apparently ILLEGAL in China to say "the zero covid policy is not sustainable" and the UN's Tedros' account was censored as a result:

 

from: 

 

Edited May 16, 2022 by Gordo

[mccoy]

I agree on the formerly uber-cunning Xi presently having some brain issue....

[AlanPater]

Previous COVID infection provides an 'edge' over Omicron — especially with vaccination
2 doses plus infection is comparable to 3 doses at preventing severe COVID-19: study
Adam Miller · CBC News · Posted: May 07, 2022
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-infection-protection-omicron-canada-1.6444674
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Protection against Omicron re-infection conferred by prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection, with and without mRNA vaccination
View ORCID ProfileSara Carazo, View ORCID ProfileDanuta M. Skowronski, View ORCID ProfileMarc Brisson, View ORCID ProfileChantal Sauvageau, View ORCID ProfileNicholas Brousseau, View ORCID ProfileRodica Gilca, View ORCID ProfileManale Ouakki, View ORCID ProfileSapha Barkati, Judith Fafard, View ORCID ProfileDenis Talbot, View ORCID ProfileVladimir Gilca, Geneviève Deceuninck, Christophe Garenc, Alex Carignan, Philippe De Wals, View ORCID ProfileGaston De Serres
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.29.22274455
Abstract
Importance
Omicron is phylogenetically- and antigenically-distinct from earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants and the original vaccine strain. Protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against Omicron re-infection, and the added value of vaccination, require quantification.
Objective
To estimate protection against Omicron re-infection and hospitalization conferred by prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 (non-Omicron) infection and/or up to three doses of (ancestral, Wuhan-like) mRNA vaccine.
Design
Test-negative study between December 26 (epi-week 52), 2021 and March 12 (epi-week 10), 2022.
Setting Population-based, province of Quebec, Canada
Participants
Community-dwelling ≥12-year-olds tested for SARS-CoV-2.
Exposures
Prior laboratory-confirmed infection with/without mRNA vaccination.
Outcomes
Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and hospitalization, presumed Omicron by genomic surveillance. The odds of prior non-Omicron infection with/without vaccination were compared among Omicron cases/hospitalizations versus test-negative controls (single randomly-selected per individual). Adjusted odds ratios controlled for age, sex, testing-indication and epi-week. Analyses were stratified by severity and time since last non-Omicron infection or vaccine dose.
Results
Without vaccination, prior non-Omicron infection reduced the Omicron re-infection risk by 44% (95%CI:38-48), decreasing from 66% (95%CI:57-73) at 3-5 months to 35% (95%CI:21-47) at 9-11 months post-infection and <30% thereafter. The more severe the prior infection, the greater the risk reduction: 8% (95%CI:17-28), 43% (95%CI:37-49) and 68% (95%CI:51-80) for prior asymptomatic, symptomatic ambulatory or hospitalized infections. mRNA vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection was consistently significantly higher among previously-infected vs. non-infected individuals at 65% (95%CI:63-67) vs. 20% (95%CI:16-24) for one-dose; 68% (95%CI:67-70) vs. 42% (95%CI:41-44) for two doses; and 83% (95%CI:81-84) vs. 73% (95%CI:72-73) for three doses. Infection-induced protection against Omicron hospitalization was 81% (95%CI: 66-89) increasing to 86% (95%CI:77-99) with one, 94% (95%CI:91-96) with two and 97%(95%CI:94-99) with three mRNA vaccine doses. Two-dose effectiveness against hospitalization among previously-infected individuals did not wane across 11 months and did not significantly differ from three-dose effectiveness despite longer follow-up (median 158 and 27 days, respectively).
Conclusions and relevance
Prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection provided substantial and sustained protection against Omicron hospitalization, greatest among those also vaccinated. In the context of program goals to prevent severe outcomes and preserve healthcare system capacity, >2 doses of ancestral Wuhan-like vaccine may be of marginal incremental value to previously-infected individuals.

[BrianA]

In a recent article published by the Bank of England, regarding inflation issues, they discuss a factor that the workforce has shrunk due to long term illness:

 

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2022/may/michael-saunders-speech-at-the-resolution-foundation-event

 

[Saul]

23 hours ago, AlanPater said:

Previous COVID infection provides an 'edge' over Omicron — especially with vaccination
2 doses plus infection is comparable to 3 doses at preventing severe COVID-19: study
Adam Miller · CBC News · Posted: May 07, 2022
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-infection-protection-omicron-canada-1.6444674
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Protection against Omicron re-infection conferred by prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection, with and without mRNA vaccination
View ORCID ProfileSara Carazo, View ORCID ProfileDanuta M. Skowronski, View ORCID ProfileMarc Brisson, View ORCID ProfileChantal Sauvageau, View ORCID ProfileNicholas Brousseau, View ORCID ProfileRodica Gilca, View ORCID ProfileManale Ouakki, View ORCID ProfileSapha Barkati, Judith Fafard, View ORCID ProfileDenis Talbot, View ORCID ProfileVladimir Gilca, Geneviève Deceuninck, Christophe Garenc, Alex Carignan, Philippe De Wals, View ORCID ProfileGaston De Serres
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.29.22274455
Abstract
Importance
Omicron is phylogenetically- and antigenically-distinct from earlier SARS-CoV-2 variants and the original vaccine strain. Protection conferred by prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against Omicron re-infection, and the added value of vaccination, require quantification.
Objective
To estimate protection against Omicron re-infection and hospitalization conferred by prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 (non-Omicron) infection and/or up to three doses of (ancestral, Wuhan-like) mRNA vaccine.
Design
Test-negative study between December 26 (epi-week 52), 2021 and March 12 (epi-week 10), 2022.
Setting Population-based, province of Quebec, Canada
Participants
Community-dwelling ≥12-year-olds tested for SARS-CoV-2.
Exposures
Prior laboratory-confirmed infection with/without mRNA vaccination.
Outcomes
Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 re-infection and hospitalization, presumed Omicron by genomic surveillance. The odds of prior non-Omicron infection with/without vaccination were compared among Omicron cases/hospitalizations versus test-negative controls (single randomly-selected per individual). Adjusted odds ratios controlled for age, sex, testing-indication and epi-week. Analyses were stratified by severity and time since last non-Omicron infection or vaccine dose.
Results
Without vaccination, prior non-Omicron infection reduced the Omicron re-infection risk by 44% (95%CI:38-48), decreasing from 66% (95%CI:57-73) at 3-5 months to 35% (95%CI:21-47) at 9-11 months post-infection and <30% thereafter. The more severe the prior infection, the greater the risk reduction: 8% (95%CI:17-28), 43% (95%CI:37-49) and 68% (95%CI:51-80) for prior asymptomatic, symptomatic ambulatory or hospitalized infections. mRNA vaccine effectiveness against Omicron infection was consistently significantly higher among previously-infected vs. non-infected individuals at 65% (95%CI:63-67) vs. 20% (95%CI:16-24) for one-dose; 68% (95%CI:67-70) vs. 42% (95%CI:41-44) for two doses; and 83% (95%CI:81-84) vs. 73% (95%CI:72-73) for three doses. Infection-induced protection against Omicron hospitalization was 81% (95%CI: 66-89) increasing to 86% (95%CI:77-99) with one, 94% (95%CI:91-96) with two and 97%(95%CI:94-99) with three mRNA vaccine doses. Two-dose effectiveness against hospitalization among previously-infected individuals did not wane across 11 months and did not significantly differ from three-dose effectiveness despite longer follow-up (median 158 and 27 days, respectively).
Conclusions and relevance
Prior heterologous SARS-CoV-2 infection provided substantial and sustained protection against Omicron hospitalization, greatest among those also vaccinated. In the context of program goals to prevent severe outcomes and preserve healthcare system capacity, >2 doses of ancestral Wuhan-like vaccine may be of marginal incremental value to previously-infected individuals.

Pfizer has a new mrna vaccine candidate, being tested in Phase 3, that is specifically designed to be effective at the omicron variants (which have a significantly different spike protein than the Wuhan viruses).  I'm in a Phase 3 Pfizer study, in which 2/3 of the participants receive a single or double dose of the Phase 3 Omicron vaccine candidate, and 1/3 of the participants just get another shot of the Wuhan vaccine.

I have an appointment in June, at which, I think, I'll be told what I received.  (Meanwhile they're drawing a lot of blood at my visits.)

  --  Saul

[Gordo]

On 5/17/2022 at 5:35 PM, BrianA said:

they discuss a factor that the workforce has shrunk due to long term illness:

% men out of workforce due to illness is still below the levels from 1993 to about 2007, which left me wondering why did women shoot up more than men? Apparently women get "long covid" at four times the rate of men? 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/13/why-are-women-more-prone-to-long-covid

[corybroo]

23 minutes ago, Gordo said:

Apparently women get "long covid" at four times the rate of men? 

Not a bad guess Gordo.  In the following from PubMed, AOR is Adjusted Odds Ratio   CB

Female gender is associated with long COVID syndrome: a prospective cohort study

Female gender was independently associated with long COVID syndrome at multivariable analysis (AOR 3.3 vs. males, 95% CI 1.8-6.2, p < 0.0001). 

[corybroo]

Perhaps our beliefs about who is most at risk are not up to date with the evolving virus.

COVID mortality age patterns changed significantly during pandemic

Between March 2020 and October 2021, the age pattern of COVID mortality changed in a striking fashion, with rates significantly dropping for those 80 and older and profoundly increasing for those 25 to 54.

"This could reflect several factors," she says. "For one, vaccine coverage is much higher among the elderly." In addition, many younger people went back to working in person and to doing other activities that increased their COVID exposure risk

Data for every group [race and ethnicity CB] showed the same trend; death rates rose for younger people and decreased for older people, leading to more total years of life lost and a substantial decrease in life expectancy overall. 

[Todd Allen]

3 hours ago, corybroo said:

Perhaps our beliefs about who is most at risk are not up to date with the evolving virus.

COVID mortality age patterns changed significantly during pandemic

Between March 2020 and October 2021, the age pattern of COVID mortality changed in a striking fashion, with rates significantly dropping for those 80 and older and profoundly increasing for those 25 to 54.

This is what Geert Vanden Bossche has been predicting.  He suggests this pattern is likely to become worse for the vaccinated, especially if the vaccination campaign continues and new vaccines targeting current variants such as Omicron are deployed.

GVB's analysis of C-19 evolutionary dynamics.pdf

Quote

Conclusion

Mass vaccination has prevented a sound balance between viral infectiousness and natural immunity that would normally have developed during a natural pandemic as an overall trait of evolution enabling host populations to effectively control viral infection and transmission while leaving the virus a chance to perpetuate. To drive the virus into endemicity and maintain a such sound equilibrium between viral infectivity and population-level immunity, natural immunity is key as it is the only way to achieve herd immunity during a pandemic. Whereas a natural pandemic naturally results in herd immunity, a pandemic that is disturbed by mass vaccination campaigns that are unable to cut the chain of viral transmission will eventually enable the virus to fully resist the vaccine-induced immune response. As a result of mounting population-level immune pressure on viral infectiousness (i.e., caused by vaccinal anti-RBD Abs), the virus will in a first step escape from the potentially neutralizing Abs and rise its level of infectiousness (ADEI). This has now translated in the dominant circulation of Omicron, which is largely resistant to potentially neutralizing vaccinal Abs and, therefore, highly infectious in vaccinees. As a result of the increasing immune pressure that highly vaccinated populations are now exerting on C type lectin-mediated viral ‘trans infectiousness’ (i.e., caused by non-neutralizing, ‘enhancing’ anti-NTD Abs), the virus will in a next step most likely evolve to also increase its virulence, thereby causing a dramatic rise in cases of severe disease (ADED) and death in vaccinees. As the mechanism of enhancement of infection and disease are mediated by binding of non-neutralizing Abs directed at a conserved site on the spike protein, the occurrence of ADEI and ADED will be particularly pronounced in ‘highly vaccinated- highly boosted’ populations exposed to a SC-2 variant that is largely resistant to vaccinal Abs that potentially inhibit viral infection (i.e., virusneutralizing Abs). The unvaccinated, however, do not suffer from ADEI for lack of infection-enhancing Abs24 . In contrast, Omicron infection in the non-vaccinated is boosting instead of compromising their innate immune defense against CoV, including all current and future variants. In addition, the type of mutations that the upcoming Newco variants are likely to incorporate to adapt to the immune pressure that highly vaccinated populations are now placing on the virulence/ pathogenicity of the virus (i.e., Oglycosite mutations) are likely to cause steric hindrance to trans infection in the non-vaccinated for lack of ‘enhancing’ Abs. Based on all of the above, it is reasonable to postulate that the unvaccinated will be spared from ADEI-mediated susceptibility to ADED. Given the intrinsic debilitation of viral virulence, even the more vulnerable among the unvaccinated would be less likely to contract severe disease upon their infection with Newco variants. To restore a sound balance that benefits both the viral and the human population, it is paramount to dramatically reduce the viral infectious pressure on the population or the population-level immune pressure on the viral life cycle. As the latter is intrinsically linked to the viral infectious pressure in a highly vaccinated population, it suffices to either lower the viral infectious pressure or the population-level immune pressure to reach that goal. Lowering the viral infectious pressure in highly vaccinated populations could only be achieved by mankind conducting large scale antiviral chemoprophylaxis campaigns; if man fails to do so, there is no doubt Nature will take care of lowering the population-level immune pressure by dramatically reducing the part of the population that is generating this immune pressure.

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Todd Allen