Our discussion veered into leaky vaccines and the origins of omicron.

My position is that most people should avoid the COVID vaccines at this point in time and that it was irresponsible to push them on everyone. I assume that it was done to cast the net wide in hopes of catching more of the at-risk people who might have become today's problem. We can't discriminate directly against the at-risk. I think it was a medically irresponsible act of cowardice. Because we are dealing with a leaky vaccine that we knew at the time was leaky. Epidemiological models were putting vaccine induced herd immunity above 100% with delta and the Israeli data available to us in Fall 2021 told us we were just trying to slow it down (non-sterilizing).

Initially I only recommended the vaccine to people with the kinds of confounding factors that'd make them high risk for SARS and low risk for any long term unforeseen consequences relating to being dosed with the adjuvant lipid nanoparticles. People over 70. Younger people with many confounding factors (obesity plus cardiopulmonary issues plus diabetes, people with cystic fibrosis, etc.). I did actually recommend it to more than one person who was leaning on me to be their sense or proportionality.

I do think that someone under 50 who is considered to be in good health for their age should avoid the vaccines. Whether it be an mRNA vaccine or the chimpanzee adenovirus based vaccines. The proportionality argument isn't there. And yes there's a "long COVID" argument, but there's always a post-viral syndrome argument and a rare presentation argument. These are rare though and the former is often treatable if you have access to a sane doctor willing to let loose with anti-inflammatories, bloodwork, and temporary visits to nutritionists and dieticians. The latter is so rare that we write case studies when they come up. Like when someone gets a cold and it somehow bypasses the blood-brain barrier and kills the patient.

Today, I think that someone over 70 who has had omicron and dealt well with it shouldn't boost. I think there's a risk of original antigenic sin and they shouldn't be tuning an immune system, already flagging with age, any more toward the wild spike. I'd rather they focus on sleep and getting enough vitamin D. Did you know that waning vitamin D seems to signal our bodies that it's winter now and that we should ramp down our immune systems to save energy since we're probably barely leaving the cave. In the modern era where we collide with each other through 6 degrees of separation, it's a disastrous response. I'd rather someone over 70 supplement to avoid that response than take the same vaccine + one for an infection they've recovered from (bivalent) and have their body knee jerk a defense for a variant that may have escaped what their body is good at.

I guess I'd recommend the bivalent vaccine for an elderly or very at risk person who has not been infected by the omicron variant. Even then, I'd leave it up to them and tell them to manage their risks. Keep an eye on hospital capacity and reduce exposure crowds. If hospitals are triaging COVID-19 patients, then start wearing a respirator and vaccinate if there's a significant difference in outcomes between vaccinated and bivalent boosted people with your preexisting conditions.

Not in those words because I'd want them to understand what the fuck I'm talking about. And if they get belligerent, I'm not getting on my hands and knees to talk them out of it unless it's a healthy child. Their body, their hopefully informed choice.