Back in July 2021, many scientists had the ill-founded view that the C-19 pandemic was dying out and entering an endemic state. Based on my understanding of the interplay between the virus and the immune system, I knew that this was not going to be the case and reacted immediately to this misinterpretation (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/a-last-word-of-caution-to-all-those-pretending-the-covid-19-pandemic-is-toning-down). Once again, many scientists find themselves with the belief that the emergence of the Omicron variant announces the end of the pandemic and the virus’ transition into endemicity. Their prediction is largely based upon the initial observation that Omicron seems to be causing rather mild disease symptoms which they interpret as being indicative of a virus that—although more infectious—is now becoming less virulent and, therefore, increasingly featuring endemic behavior. I am afraid that once again, I don’t agree—a pandemic can only be tamed by herd immunity. Given the high vaccine coverage rates in most industrialized countries, we have generated anything but herd immunity. I also have yet to hear any compelling evidence concerning significant mutations in the genes that determine SARS-CoV-2’s virulence. Perhaps we should think twice before making statements that are not supported by immunological evidence.
This is what I believe is currently happening.
As Omicron appears largely resistant to neutralizing antibodies (Abs), it no longer strongly binds to vaccinal Abs (still directed at the spike protein [S] of the Wuhan strain). More specifically, Omicron allows for the restoring of full functional capacity of relevant innate Abs. The latter are known to be very efficient in preventing or abrogating productive infection and, therefore, preventing (severe) disease in individuals endowed with an intact innate immune system (i.e., people in good health and without underlying diseases or immune suppression, including vaccine-mediated immune suppression). As vaccinal neutralizing Abs are highly specific, they are less likely to bind to the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of Omicron, which has undergone a multitude of mutations within this very domain. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect that the vaccine-mediated Abs will fail to outcompete relevant innate Abs in vaccinees and hence, increase the incidence of asymptomatic infections in this population. It is intriguing that the Israeli Ministry of Health interprets asymptomatic infection in vaccinees as proof of “full protection” despite the fact that Omicron is highly suspicious of bypassing neutralizing antibodies (1, 2). Asymptomatic disease is known to lead to a short duration of anti-S Ab titers (3, 4). However, due to the high level of infectivity of Omicron, re-exposure to the virus is highly likely to occur with a timeframe that is short enough to coincide with elevated anti-S Ab levels. Consequently, dominant circulation of Omicron would ultimately make vaccinees more frequently susceptible to disease, whereas fewer and fewer unvaccinated individuals would be susceptible to contracting C-19 disease as a result of innate immune training upon viral exposure. In conclusion, it seems highly unlikely that dominant circulation of Omicron will result in diminished incidence of disease and cause the pandemic to transition into an endemic state. In contrast to the situation in the pre-Omicron era, the incidence of disease is now likely to disproportionately increase in vaccinees. This may, once again, prompt public health authorities to follow the erroneous advice of the vaccine industry and key opinion leaders who will undoubtedly recommend to continue the mass vaccination program using updated vaccines that suit the S version of the Omicron variant. In a previous contribution, I’d already predicted the dire consequences such a decision would entail (https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/mass-vaccination-will-push-sars-cov-2-spike-protein-beyond-omicron)—in brief, it will allow the virus to make a natural selection favoring hosts who preserved a fully functional innate immune defense.
References:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-omicron-count-rises-to-21-as-10-more-cases-confirmed/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7772470/pdf/fimmu-11-610300.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8107204/pdf/41392_2021_Article_596.pdf
We are dedicated to bringing the real science to the table. If you think that our work matters, consider to help us.
Follow “Voice for Science and Solidarity” on:
Twitter | Gab | Telegram | MeWe | Facebook | Rumble | Website
Slightly off topic: How about going with "Vaccine free" instead of unvaccinated or unvaxxed. This goes along the lines of Gluten free, BPA free, Fat free, Hassle free, Preservative free instead of in the same basket as Unhealthy, Uncaring, Undesirable, Unattractive. It also implies being mentally and physically free. This a summary of a lengthy post (I only have a screen shot of) seems to have been credited to K.G. Wardsmith Warrior.
"This may, once again, prompt public health authorities to follow the erroneous advice of the vaccine industry and key opinion leaders who will undoubtedly recommend to continue the mass vaccination program using updated vaccines that suit the S version of the Omicron variant. "
Dr. Bossche, not "may" but surely they will recommend 250% vaccination coverage once the 100% vaccination coverage fails so misarably and accelerates the evolution of the disease.
It's really a hopeless situation. No matter what happens, the response is the same - "More vaccine".