nojokes

You mean that chicken thing? Total different. But it could have happened. Sars-cov died off because it was too deadly and not enough infectious. Imaging there was a vaccine against Sars-cov to make it less deadly. Perhaps we could have kept it in circulation and natural selection would have eliminated all the anti-vaxxers...

But Sars-cov-2 is different. It is without doubt in circulation and mutating. Less it mutates, less new versions it can make. Because COVID-19 vaccines limit replication and transmission, they also limit new variant emergence. Had this person that gave omicron to the world been vaccinated, omicron would have lost its change.

Now about omicron infecting more people who have gotten booster is completely wrong. Totally. It is just your anti-vaxxer mind messing with you. This is the way your dark mind functions - making things up.

New variants need more mutation cycles. If vaccines slow down transmission (what they do) then they contribute to lower probability of emergence of new variants.

There is oral vaccine in development, so maybe some day...

It is a good perspective. I mean invoking Shannon part. There are definitely limitations to the antibody levels because otherwise we would just explode, right? But it makes sense to try to keep levels high in the event of pandemic. Our bodies unfortunately could not do it on their own so we have to beat them to do this.

Are you talking about Israel? My friend from there told me that regardless of huge political differences, there has not been stupid rivalry because of covid.

No, they advise against doing it too often i.e. doing 4th shot shortly after 3rd. That's all.

R9 for measles is even higher - 10-12 but it has long incubation period that makes is much slower. Omicron is the fastest spreading virus in history so far.

Ct value is just a proxy to viral load and it has been found that the same Ct value results in less cultivable virus for vaccinated.

This negative effect is really most likely because of some confounding factors as others have said. I have seen claimed ADE as always but for that to be true I would expect recent vaccination to offer less protection not more and boosting offer less protection and not more.

Not sure about this source but this one is https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-trial-worlds-first-fin...

I vouched this dead comment to just ask something. Are you a retard? Nigeria just bulldozered millions of still valid vaccines into the ground instead of using them to vaccinate their most vulnerable. There are not many in the late age risk groups in Africa. Just 75 millions in total. It is not about vaccine shipments. It is about their logistics and vaccine hesitancy. WHO can do a lot there to help instead of poisoning the common knowledge constantly with the false information.

Look at Israel. They vaccinated themselves out of epidemic twice. Just stop pretending that delta was the same as native virus and everything moves into place.

Their current vaccination levels are too low to stop omicron but they are not dying from that like happened with delta, so they are doing fine.

They do. You just have to apply enough of them. Just stop pretending that 2 doses are enough to stop delta or omicron and move forward.

There are easier ways to say that I am not as smart I think I am. No need to use 1000 words for that.

Or any clinical trial.

I did not know that there was a journal for fairy tales.

When persons do not know history of epidemic control, they better keep their mouths shut. Do they claim that medieval Venice was a welfare state?

Yes, we could have and we could have deployed vaccines in short months. But we did not because we found it not to be ethical. Letting millions of people die was found much more ethical. Also keeping strict control over vaccine production was found ethical instead of scaling the production into as many countries as possible.

Still running?

Not sure what has gotten into them. They are also still running https://www.principletrial.org/ to validate favipiravir and ivermectin. They have continued to hire new patients for months. I guessed that there was some urgency to find out if these drugs work or not at all.

They say that it is kind of molecular test, what ever it means - everything has molecules in it. Looks like a fancy rapid test in a wasteful package based on the initial reading.

Sweet Jesus. I hoped that after Israel became front runner for the Pfizer vaccine, there is no stupid shit like this.

The idiots behind this nonsense deserved it. We still see these clowns around and it is clear what they were from the beginning - lie spreading anti-vaxxers.

It is also surprising how many idiots come from Harvard.

That is the issue. Normally war is among forces wanting to fight. Others are causalities or enemy collaborators even.

I think if we (the world) had taken this as what it really is - a war, we would have been done with it by now. Even by now the production of vaccines is not sufficient to vaccinate the whole world at once. The introduction of vaccines was stupidly delayed because of non-sense ethical issues not allowing to conduct challenge studies regardless of availability of tens of thousands of healthy volunteers.

Now the enemy has made allies with the most stupid ones among us and the war is much harder to win. In principle we have lost it already as the virus has found a way to enter into other species. It will never end.

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania disagree with you. So does Ukraine and Georgia.

Also Finland and Norway would like to have few words with you.

There is one difference: Singer et al paper excludes all patients with previous cardiac incidents.

Yes, I know this study. Thanks. I think this is better reference https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.23.21260998v...

These papers are not directly comparable.

Singer et al paper estimates first occurrence of myocarditis without any previous cardiovascular history and without previous vaccination against COVID-19. The OP paper does not have this specification so the results of these papers are not directly comparable.

In addition the Singer et al paper includes also pericarditis, myopericarditis (myocarditis and pericarditis occurring together) in addition to myocarditis. Considering that pericarditis is more prevalent in COVID-19 patients and is missing in vaccinated https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0 OP papers clearly is overestimating the difference.

I agree.

I wanted to specify that I find these attempts to but vaccination and covid-19 into perspective very important. This is first study that I know so far has truly attempted to do so. Now in current state they create more confusion and possible harm but they have the data so they should be able to fix these issues.

This study has multiple issues as did the original study it is accompanying but what got published in Nature Medicine https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0

First the original study did not stratify based on age and sex - a huge failure because potential issue among young men was well known problem.

This preprint tries to fix this but as the original study compared also other cardiac adverse events like pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias, the preprint does not. It is important because the rate of other complications was not elevated among vaccinated.

This study uses self-controlled case series. This means that they compare against previous incidence rates in the study group (vaccinated, covid-19). This would be possibly more or less fine if they compared two treatments but even then there is big potential for selection bias (the choice of treatment is based on preexisting conditions) but is even higher when you compare treatment and disease - covid-19 is harder for people with comorbidities, when you make a comparison within this group, you can most likely expect higher preexisting prevalence of heart conditions and therefor lower IRR.

This preprint and the orginal paper do not contain any mentioning of unvaccinated. It very likely means that the covid-19 group also contains patients who were vaccinated and had lower rate of AE.

Finally, this study design includes people with previous incidence. Hearth problems are very often recurrent. While it is important to know if vaccination of covid-19 will reintroduce the condition, it is not very interesting for most of the people because incidence rate of these conditions is very low. What is real interest here is how prevalent it is among people who did not have it previously.

Now I am really interested to find out the truth here. This preprint and the orginal study does not help me in this unfortunately.

No, they did not. What they meant was that already Delta is so contagious that only very limited amount of people can avoid it - r0 ~ 6-8 will make sure of it that ~85-90% of people must be immune to stop its spread.

Seasonal flu has r0 = 1.3. This means that it does not affect 75% of the population. The formula is p = 1 - (1/r0) to find out at what level of immunity the disease will die out.

Original Sars2 had r0 = 3, this meant that about 60% immunity level is needed. This is from where to original need of 70% of vaccinated comes from - vaccines do not give 100% immunity so you have to account for that.

Delta messed everything up. With p=85% and vaccine efficiency of 70% (because nobody, except Israelis dared to think about boosters first), you need more than 100% vaccinated - everyone gets is either vaccinated and lucky or vaccinated/unvaccinated and will get infected.

How many of the unvaccinated in Ontario have been previously infected by any previous variants? Is there any recent seroprevalence data available?

Normally we know how many people are vaccinated because we counted them. Are you sure that this 8.5% is the correct figure though? How big could be the possible error here?

How big is omicron prevalence in Denmark? ECDC data appears to be way outdated. It can be possible that unvaccinated catch the Delta first for some reason. Perhaps because Delta is still more prevalent and does not affect vaccinated so easily but omicron does.

Behavioral changes may also explain some of the difference. If the testing has been mandatory for long time, I would expect some testing fatigue to appear resulting in lower social activity for unvaccinated.

Are there recent seroprevalence studies available? How many from the current unvaccinated population are still uninfected? Previous infection may offer still reasonably good protection against omicron regardless of lower laboratory neutralization activity.

Of course there is also possibility that vaccinated are more affected by omicron but I would then not expect the third dose to increase the protection against it but lower it instead. Efficiency should also increase in time, not get lower. Unless there is some mechanism involved that leaves previously vaccinated people with waned immune response even more vulnerable that people without any previous immunity.