Who made up the “safe and effective” lie?
(media.omegacanada.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (49)
sorted by:
Immunologists went with this. It's not complicated. Vaccine and treatment leakage is credited with giving us patient zero for omicron in South Africa. An immunocompromised person whose system just couldn't purge the remaining reservoirs of virus after treatment with monoclonal antibodies. Natural selection being what it is, we got what we got.
Do you not recall the many Marek's allegories or are you just gaslighting?
Folks, why would anyone believe any of this? There's not a single link to back up anything claimed.
Says the ignorant uneducated fat car mechanic to the one Omega poster with a medical degree.
@ u/ItLivesInTheWind/
Lol
You saying it doesn't make it so.
Does Vice work for you for the omicron origin? https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgddw4/omicron-variant-interview-with-south-african-doctor
National Geographic has a light article on Marek's here, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/leaky-vaccines-enhance-spread-of-deadlier-chicken-viruses
I'm going to explain the concept of leakiness and hopefully personalize it some.
The measure of vaccine "leakiness" is the extend to which it fails to be sterilizing in vaccinees as they encounter the pathogen. VS the alpha variant, sure, there was a reasonable expectation that the average (young + healthy) vaccinee's infection wouldn't hit viral loads high enough to allow for a extensive transmission. Amongst the kinds of people you want vaccinated, it wasn't good enough. See outbreaks of alpha in care homes. But this isn't unexpected since a vaccine requires a healthy immune response.
Where this starts to become a huge problem is with the fall delta wave. Where vaccination is no longer specific for the strain going around AND vaccinees are starting to be 3-6 months out from their last dose. We're dropping from 80-95% reductions in transmission to 60-80 and 40-60 ( go back through these https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-surveillance-reports if you care to dig into it it's usually around page 13 depending on the week but the post omicron studies cited aren't great but we're not really talking about those ).
Anyway, when you have replication toward transmission occurring in significant numbers of vaccinees, you create a situation where "leaky vaccines" start worrying people.
The vaccinee is rarely going to experience reduced severity. This protects an evolved strain from rendering itself non-transmissible on account of causing worse symptoms. With a virus, there comes a point where it incapacitates the host to such a degree that it's easily detected and/or the host is in no position to carry it to new hosts. There are social exceptions like Ebola and some African funeral customs, shitty PPE, etc. But here we'd have someone like yourself maybe getting delta and maybe not really knowing. Perhaps you're young and healthy and motivated to go about your day after thinking you just under slept or ate something off. Being delta, your body's vaccine head start isn't good. It starts replicating. Millions of replications occur. Many on point. Most dead ends. Maybe a small handful are beneficial.
But some of those symptom increasing dead ends aren't dead ends for you. You're now a reservoir for a new deadlier strain of covid-19. Not noticeably deadlier to young, healthy, vaccinees but perhaps it does noticeably more damage older and less healthy vaccinees and definitely lays out unvaccinated people. And before you say GOOD!, unvaccinated people are primarily small children.
This is why we traditionally restrict non-sterilizing vaccination to those who need it. The old, the unwell, and those who will be exposed often having to deal with higher initial viral loads. These people are going to be brought low by infection or will be in medical environments where contact tracing will be possible.
*There's a caveat here that the deadlier strain being passed along by the vaccinee will likely be in a reduced number of particles and so they might need to expose an immunocompromised intermediary. It's a gas + match situation.
Do I have this right? You're claiming that leaky vaccines are responsible for Omicron, and for evidence you are offering people presenting with Omicron who have not been shown to be vaccinated?
"All viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, change over time." https://www.who.int/activities/tracking-SARS-CoV-2-variants.
I wonder what the reduction in damage from covid would have been if everyone who could get vaccinated did so right from the get go, given that it has been clearly demonstrated that vaccination reduces the impact of the virus. https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2022-02/421-010-CasesInNotFullyVaccinated.pdf and https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2796235?guestAccessKey=b5fa1eb3-0d40-4ef4-bdce-0bd40db52d45&utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email
[edited to add:] Your Nat. Geo. article quotes authorities on both sides of the argument.
An immunocompromised individual who was vaccinated and treated aggressively with monoclonal antibodies is supposedly where omicron happened. Worth noting is that these antibodies and whatever the patient's immune system produced by way of vaccination were not specific enough to clear the infection on their own.
Remember rebound COVID with Paxlovid? It's a similar principle. The patient's immune system isn't up to detecting and clearing the last of the infection's reservoir and so it comes back. Part of coming back is viral replication and this is an imperfect process.
A leaky vaccine just forgives mutations that'd retard transmission by way of incapacitating or killing an unvaccinated but not vaccinated host. This is only possible when the vaccine is not sterilizing. Whether this be because of an immunocompromised vaccinee or, as is the case with COVID-19 vaccines, we're producing bloodborne immunity to a something that can replicate in the upper respiratory tract to a degree that it's still contagious AND we're vaccinating against an ancestral strain that's already escaped dependence on the wild spike.
In the case of omicron, we ended up with a variant that's over 70x better at replicating in upper respiratory tissues. These have far poorer bloodborne antibody coverage than lower lung tissues which are constantly encountering large volumes of blood flow. This would be why, with wild spike antibodies interfering with covid replication, the lower lung tissue still proved a poor host to delta/omicron. Though omicron is already poor at lower lung replication, it bears bringing up that delta is more specific to the lower lungs + has a closer surface geometry (epitope) to the wuhan strain than omicron does. The vaccines worked far better for delta but were leaky.
Yes all viruses change over time. By their nature they actually change countless times in a single individual, but like someone born with their lungs outside their body or without genitals, almost all changes are not evolutionarily beneficial. Most are going to interfere with the virus gaining entry to a cell and/or hijacking the environment to assemble itself. They are best thought of as a self-assembling biotoxin with features that exploit entropy and enthalpy to increase their chances of landing them in the right place and time to do that self-assembly. They are not alive.
There'd have been little reduction unless you're talking about a what if where we contravened our Charter and forcefully discriminated against the sick, disabled, and elderly. We didn't do this. We applied mandates that they mostly wouldn't care about. Someone too sick to travel and too old to work is who we were most worried about.
In the beginning, short of putting gas tents over care homes and deploying the military to live in staff them, there isn't much we could have done after the head start we gave it. We'd have had to have done a 2002-2003 style quarantine on at-risk facilities.
Now, a sane response would have been to control airports as we did in SARS-2002. A saner response would have been to denounce the WHO's use of our SARS report to browbeat countries into keeping their airports open. That report more or less said that questioning people on the honour system catches too few cases per dollar spent. But Tam's name is on that report and maybe she was too enamored of something she contributed to being recognized internationally to speak out against it. That'd take a level of respect for epidemiology and resolve that she doesn't have. In 2002-2003 we reduced the damage to a thousands of cases and a double digit death toll and we were by far the most affected western country. A similarly infectious strain. Everyone did something right.
The report definitely did NOT say that airports should just be left open during the early stages of a spread. I say spread because there was fuckery early on with the word "pandemic". I'm assuming it has to do with pandemic bonds and having to liquidate and hand them over to the international poor once one is officially declared. But I digress. Any epidemiologist, especially one that worked and published on the SARS 2002-2003 pandemic knew what to do.
The alpha variant wasn't much more infectious than the 2002 strain in terms of R0. It needed a massive head start to become what it did and the WHO did that. And Canada actually produced 'The Science' that allowed for that particular.
For the nat geo article, there's also a study that shows lower viral loads being passed on and surmising that the reduced inoculum (initially transmitted viral load) can allow for natural immunity to get started in unvaccinated chickens before the more severe symptoms kick in. It can go a lot of ways but it's highly probably that that version of chicken herpes exists because of a leaky vaccine. The consequences today are that a partially vaccinated flock might be fine. A naïve flock not so much.
It both reduces the impact of the virus and likely allowed for the existence and dominance of the more fatal strain in the first place.