Thank you for the update, Igor! We'll have to see how the UKHSA will present future data. One would hope they'd just add another category...boosted. Either way, the data out of Israel makes clear that they will be right back at the same place in six months. Will the sheeple fall for another booster?
Many I know who are young and healthy were persuaded to get the virus because they believed that viral mutation was unlikely in a vaccinated person and they thought the unvaccinated would be responsible for any new strains. I never believed that, but what you've described suggests it could be even worse than we thought.
As a sidenote, an acquaintance recently told me her doctor told her monoclonal antibodies may soon be available prophylactically. Since the so-called vaccine appears to be a temporary prophylactic against severe disease and death (unless the third or fourth shot has miraculous properties) I am guessing this is on the horizon. Too bad there aren't any less expensive, repurposed, proven safe prophylactics available and haven't been since the beginning, eh? (Sarcasm, since I know that's hard to transmit in writing.)
There was a recent study that showed most people develop blood antibodies to the receptor binding domain as opposed to the nucleocapsid. The authors assumed the immune system of these people neutralized the virus before it started splitting in any serious numbers and didn't need N antibodies. That begs the question if the UK cohort for delta (summer 21 to now) is different as in healthier overall than what we saw with alpha. If true that might also contribute explain the lower IFR of delta in the UK. That's just a thought.
Something is clearly suspect with the vaccines. There simply should not be this many "cases" after 2 years of exposure and the strength of natural immunity. Some scientists have suggested the vaccines damage innate immunity as well and there is the recent paper showing spike proteins produced by mRNA vaccines enter the nucleus and disrupt DNA repair and thus immunity.
a. Do the "booster" concoctions contain the same S protein as the initial drug or are they modified with the S protein from the latest strain i.e. they provide cumulative protection against the various strains up until the point of manufacture?
b. Why don't the drug companies responsible for producing these concoctions include other proteins to make it more "effective"?
If we know the answers to the above questions does this not infer that the drug companies and the relevant government agencies knew this prior to requesting EUA? Maybe this is partly why they are reluctant to release the data which the EUA is based on i.e. so others may validate the data.
Thank you for these very informative posts on the UKHSA data. Would it be possible to calculate the expected number of vaccinated cases/hospitalizations/deaths if we assume the vaccines were 90% (or whatever %) effective?
A very important question. If the vaccinated always react with the same set of antigens to the virus, even when they get really sick, they will get reinfections. If enough people are prone to reinfections, the virus becomes seasonal and will never go away. In this case, the vaccination campaign has made SARS-2 permanent - without vaccines, SARS-2 would have vanished already like SARS-1.
Mr. Chudov, if im in a situation where i either take the vax or be jailed (Austria actually plans to implement this)... Only vaccine that looks "normal" to me is Valneva VLA2001 - highly-purified inactivated whole virus adjuvanted with alum and CpG1018. What do you think?
The word "survivor" is important. Also to remember that natural immunity, supposedly considered better in the article, also wanes just like vaccinated immunity and equally open to breakthrough infection. On the other hand, vaccination prevents death, serious illness, and is of shorter duration, which in turn affects lesser N-protein antibody production, even if regardless of severity of illness, has significant impact of death rate and long-term adverse consequences of infection. Therefore, treating it as an endemic like Flu etc. and timely booster (has highest impact on severity) to all has more probability of preventing replications and mutations as opposed to acquiring natural immunity that would also wane and will expose people to breakthrough infections. It is only after waning of immunity, either acquired through vaccination or natural, a breakthrough infection may lead to severe illness, in which case lower N-protein antibody may play a role. In waned immunity unvaccinated population, both S- and N-protein antibody production may spike again, but supposedly, death rate may still be stable as before i.e., around 2% of all who develop severe illness. In a waned immunity vaccinated population, theoretically, death rate and severity may increase as speculatively, S-protein antibody production may spike but N-protein antibody production may not, as discussed in the article. However, if timely vaccination takes place, it will show similar effect on severity and death rate as it has shown till now since the start of the pandemic. That is, vaccination prevented severity and deaths. An established finding and conclusion.
This is actually basic immunity 101, but later narative keep pushing the idea that immunity is waning, hence booster is required, the problem with this narrative is fail to mention the role of memory cells, wanning immunity is OK, memory cell will handle the next encounter, to produce antibody much faster than the first encounter.. the same narrative is promoting booster, but the problem is booster is still using an old version if S protein , while new variant is basically return with a new S protein that is not recognized by the memory cell, hence it will create a new infections
Really great detailed information. Great work.
Thank you for the update, Igor! We'll have to see how the UKHSA will present future data. One would hope they'd just add another category...boosted. Either way, the data out of Israel makes clear that they will be right back at the same place in six months. Will the sheeple fall for another booster?
Many I know who are young and healthy were persuaded to get the virus because they believed that viral mutation was unlikely in a vaccinated person and they thought the unvaccinated would be responsible for any new strains. I never believed that, but what you've described suggests it could be even worse than we thought.
As a sidenote, an acquaintance recently told me her doctor told her monoclonal antibodies may soon be available prophylactically. Since the so-called vaccine appears to be a temporary prophylactic against severe disease and death (unless the third or fourth shot has miraculous properties) I am guessing this is on the horizon. Too bad there aren't any less expensive, repurposed, proven safe prophylactics available and haven't been since the beginning, eh? (Sarcasm, since I know that's hard to transmit in writing.)
There was a recent study that showed most people develop blood antibodies to the receptor binding domain as opposed to the nucleocapsid. The authors assumed the immune system of these people neutralized the virus before it started splitting in any serious numbers and didn't need N antibodies. That begs the question if the UK cohort for delta (summer 21 to now) is different as in healthier overall than what we saw with alpha. If true that might also contribute explain the lower IFR of delta in the UK. That's just a thought.
Something is clearly suspect with the vaccines. There simply should not be this many "cases" after 2 years of exposure and the strength of natural immunity. Some scientists have suggested the vaccines damage innate immunity as well and there is the recent paper showing spike proteins produced by mRNA vaccines enter the nucleus and disrupt DNA repair and thus immunity.
What about B and T cell immunity? Seems the shots don't give people those either or at least there doesn't seem to be any certainty.
Question;
a. Do the "booster" concoctions contain the same S protein as the initial drug or are they modified with the S protein from the latest strain i.e. they provide cumulative protection against the various strains up until the point of manufacture?
b. Why don't the drug companies responsible for producing these concoctions include other proteins to make it more "effective"?
If we know the answers to the above questions does this not infer that the drug companies and the relevant government agencies knew this prior to requesting EUA? Maybe this is partly why they are reluctant to release the data which the EUA is based on i.e. so others may validate the data.
Cheers.
Thank you for these very informative posts on the UKHSA data. Would it be possible to calculate the expected number of vaccinated cases/hospitalizations/deaths if we assume the vaccines were 90% (or whatever %) effective?
A very important question. If the vaccinated always react with the same set of antigens to the virus, even when they get really sick, they will get reinfections. If enough people are prone to reinfections, the virus becomes seasonal and will never go away. In this case, the vaccination campaign has made SARS-2 permanent - without vaccines, SARS-2 would have vanished already like SARS-1.
Endorse. Amplify.
Mr. Chudov, if im in a situation where i either take the vax or be jailed (Austria actually plans to implement this)... Only vaccine that looks "normal" to me is Valneva VLA2001 - highly-purified inactivated whole virus adjuvanted with alum and CpG1018. What do you think?
The word "survivor" is important. Also to remember that natural immunity, supposedly considered better in the article, also wanes just like vaccinated immunity and equally open to breakthrough infection. On the other hand, vaccination prevents death, serious illness, and is of shorter duration, which in turn affects lesser N-protein antibody production, even if regardless of severity of illness, has significant impact of death rate and long-term adverse consequences of infection. Therefore, treating it as an endemic like Flu etc. and timely booster (has highest impact on severity) to all has more probability of preventing replications and mutations as opposed to acquiring natural immunity that would also wane and will expose people to breakthrough infections. It is only after waning of immunity, either acquired through vaccination or natural, a breakthrough infection may lead to severe illness, in which case lower N-protein antibody may play a role. In waned immunity unvaccinated population, both S- and N-protein antibody production may spike again, but supposedly, death rate may still be stable as before i.e., around 2% of all who develop severe illness. In a waned immunity vaccinated population, theoretically, death rate and severity may increase as speculatively, S-protein antibody production may spike but N-protein antibody production may not, as discussed in the article. However, if timely vaccination takes place, it will show similar effect on severity and death rate as it has shown till now since the start of the pandemic. That is, vaccination prevented severity and deaths. An established finding and conclusion.
This is actually basic immunity 101, but later narative keep pushing the idea that immunity is waning, hence booster is required, the problem with this narrative is fail to mention the role of memory cells, wanning immunity is OK, memory cell will handle the next encounter, to produce antibody much faster than the first encounter.. the same narrative is promoting booster, but the problem is booster is still using an old version if S protein , while new variant is basically return with a new S protein that is not recognized by the memory cell, hence it will create a new infections
Let's hope they do as this will never end!
Maybe the reason for the higher case rates is that they are already getting infected multiple times?