Are we just going to have to live with unvaccinated people across Thailand?

[johnnybangkok]

9 hours ago, pedro01 said:

Long-Term side effects would not be known at this point.

 

Or maybe you know something the FDA doesn't

Like a broken record.

 

I don't know for sure the moon isn't going to crash into earth next week or the sun isn't going to explode in July but the PROBABILITY of it not happening is pretty good.

 

'Probability is the branch of mathematics concerning numerical descriptions of how likely an event is to occur, or how likely it is that a proposition is true. ... The higher the probability of an event, the more likely it is that the event will occur.' 

 

With over 10 billion doses administered worldwide over a period of 15 months, the probability of any long term side effects is low.

 

If you worked on the basis that you wouldn't do anything unless it was 100% safe and certain then you would probably never get into a car or cross a road. Which is of course nonsense but seem to be the mainstay of your thoughts on vaccines. It really is pretty ridiculous and I suspect is just a feeble attempt to justify your general anti-vax stance.

[heybruce]

23 hours ago, pedro01 said:

Not according the FDA that approve them

 

https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/vaccine-development-101

 

"It is important to note that a vaccine is a drug. Like any drug, vaccines have benefits and risks"

 

"there is still a need for ongoing surveillance of vaccines after FDA-approval to identify uncommon adverse events or long-term complications that may occur"

 

Catching Covid also has risks, most notably death.  Millions have died of Covid.  How many have died from vaccines?

 

Ongoing surveillance of vaccines is standard practice.  However before release they are tested sufficiently to ensure the risks of adverse events or long-term consequences are very low.  I am not aware of any serious long-term consequences from any kind of common vaccine.

 

There is also ongoing surveillance of Covid to identify long-term complications.  The complications identified are many and scary.

 

"A growing number of studies suggest many COVID-19 survivors experience some type of heart damage, even if they didn't have underlying heart disease and weren't sick enough to be hospitalized. This latest twist has health care experts worried about a potential increase in heart failure."  https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

[heybruce]

23 hours ago, pedro01 said:

So what?

 

As the FDA says - there is still risks with vaccines  - even after approval. That is my point. I backed that up 

 

Why would drugs and vaccines need to be approved in the same way for that to be true? 

 

You guys are preaching the science as if it's final - I have show you why it isn't.  The FDA says it isn't. 

 

But just for you - here's a list of vaccines that have been withdrawn from the market - some for safety reasons: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561254/table/T4/

 

Science.

 

Perceived safety reasons and safety concerns. 

 

A short list considering how long vaccines have been in use and the number of different types of vaccines.

[johnnybangkok]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Catching Covid also has risks, most notably death.  Millions have died of Covid.  How many have died from vaccines?

 

Ongoing surveillance of vaccines is standard practice.  However before release they are tested sufficiently to ensure the risks of adverse events or long-term consequences are very low.  I am not aware of any serious long-term consequences from any kind of common vaccine.

 

There is also ongoing surveillance of Covid to identify long-term complications.  The complications identified are many and scary.

 

"A growing number of studies suggest many COVID-19 survivors experience some type of heart damage, even if they didn't have underlying heart disease and weren't sick enough to be hospitalized. This latest twist has health care experts worried about a potential increase in heart failure."  https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/09/03/what-covid-19-is-doing-to-the-heart-even-after-recovery

Another point is the people who came up with vaccines are taking it themselves and letting their own family and friends take it too. Do anti-vaxxers really think these people would risk their own families and friends if they weren’t confident of the data?

 

This idea there is a huge conspiracy/cover up is just being held on to by these people because they have the inability to admit they have been wrong all along. So fine. If that’s your stance then be prepared for the consequences of no traveling, limited interactions with others and the very real possibility of long term health problems. 

[ozimoron]

On 2/10/2022 at 5:22 PM, pedro01 said:

True but we still also know that the majority are old, obese or otherwise ill already.

 

So should an 18 year old whonis healthy be forced to have a jab if they dont want to?

 

Naaaaaa

Yes, so he doesn't transmit the virus to the old, obese and otherwise ill already. Or he might transmit it to someone who will in turn transmit it to the old, obese or otherwise unhealthy. If he wants not to get a vaccine he should not be allowed anywhere where he might come into close contact with the old, obese or otherwise unhealthy.

[greg71]

26 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Yes, so he doesn't transmit the virus to the old, obese and otherwise ill already. Or he might transmit it to someone who will in turn transmit it to the old, obese or otherwise unhealthy. If he wants not to get a vaccine he should not be allowed anywhere where he might come into close contact with the old, obese or otherwise unhealthy.

If im not mistaken those who are vaccinated can and do transmit it onwards to others just as much as the unvaxxed . 

[ozimoron]

On 2/11/2022 at 1:29 AM, greg71 said:

If im not mistaken those who are vaccinated can and do transmit it onwards to others just as much as the unvaxxed . 

No, that's absolutely false and there are so many  posts on this board which establish that fact beyond shadow of doubt...

[greg71]

On 2/11/2022 at 2:21 AM, ozimoron said:

No, that's absolutely false and there are so many  posts on this board which establish that fact beyond shadow of doubt...

Seems like the cdc thinks otherwise  dated feb 2 2022 - so in your words they are lying about the matter ? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/omicron-variant.html

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, greg71 said:

If im not mistaken those who are vaccinated can and do transmit it onwards to others just as much as the unvaxxed . 

Just for you, seeing as you've obviously not gone through this thread and seen the links to the evidence previously posted, plenty more where that came from.

 

BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1 but vaccinated persons are less likely to be infected and to pass on infection

 

https://en.ssi.dk/news/news/2022/ba2-more-transmissible-than-ba1-vaccinated-less-likely-to-infected-pass-on-infection

 

[greg71]

37 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Just for you, seeing as you've obviously not gone through this thread and seen the links to the evidence previously posted, plenty more where that came from.

 

BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1 but vaccinated persons are less likely to be infected and to pass on infection

 

https://en.ssi.dk/news/news/2022/ba2-more-transmissible-than-ba1-vaccinated-less-likely-to-infected-pass-on-infection

 

That does not say that the vaccinated does NOT transmit  it . Anyway enjoy your weekend matey 

[ozimoron]

On 2/11/2022 at 2:51 AM, greg71 said:

Seems like the cdc thinks otherwise  dated feb 2 2022 - so in your words they are lying about the matter ? https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/omicron-variant.html

In no way does that site state or imply "just as much"

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, greg71 said:

That does not say that the vaccinated does NOT transmit  it . Anyway enjoy your weekend matey 

Your claim in your quote below................

4 hours ago, greg71 said:

If im not mistaken those who are vaccinated can and do transmit it onwards to others just as much as the unvaxxed . 

Debunked by the evidence........

 

BA.2 is more transmissible than BA.1 but vaccinated persons are less likely to be infected and to pass on infection

 

https://en.ssi.dk/news/news/2022/ba2-more-transmissible-than-ba1-vaccinated-less-likely-to-infected-pass-on-infection

[pomchop]

Oh how I wish their was a vaccination against misinformation, conspiracy theories, rumours, and people who think that they know more than thousands of scientists and doctors worldwide who have studied viruses for decades and have mountains of data to support their recommendations.

[3NUMBAS]

same as the uk dealing  with an epidemic and not a pandemic  will be the norm

[TropicalGuy]

2 hours ago, pomchop said:

Oh how I wish their was a vaccination against misinformation, conspiracy theories, rumours, and people who think that they know more than thousands of scientists and doctors worldwide who have studied viruses for decades and have mountains of data to support their recommendations.

Yes, but these facts don’t fit the certifiable conspiracy theory loons narrative ????????

[TropicalGuy]

8 hours ago, greg71 said:

If im not mistaken those who are vaccinated can and do transmit it onwards to others just as much as the unvaxxed . 

You are mistaken

[ThLT]

You say that the effectiveness and waning of boosters in the UK Health Security Agency report is doubtful, because you think there are probably few people who were boosted in that sample and during that time? Here is what you said:

 

On 2/8/2022 at 12:17 PM, heybruce said:

Finally had time to look at the study.  The numbers on waning booster effectiveness are based on a total of 68,489 Omicron cases between 27 November 2021 and 17 December 2021.  It does not say how many of those occurred in people who had received boosters ... ten weeks before 17 December would be early October, when only a small fraction of the population had received boosters.

You keep repeating that. It's now the third or fourth time you've said something along those lines, and I've pointed this out to you each time, but you still seem to not grasp the issue with your point:

 

If the data in a study is about the waning of effectiveness of a booster, it means the sample of people of that data have had a booster. How is that difficult to understand? To have data about boosters requires that the sample has had a booster.

 

This makes your first point above entirely baseless.

 

Regarding your second point, you say that the entire report should essentially be ignored because of a "warning" in the report?

 

On 2/8/2022 at 12:17 PM, heybruce said:

That is why the study has the warning:

First of wall, it isn't a "warning." And most importantly, that isn't what the "warning" means or says at all.

 

Now, instead of continuing with the previous report—which you say was not reliable because too few people had been boosted at the time—let's take the comprehensive findings from the February 17 report of the UK Health Security Agency (which, by the way, is a government agency and team of epidemiologists, statisticians, and scientists responsible for the COVID pandemic in the England at the moment, if that wasn't clear):

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1055620/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_7.pdf

 

Quote

ChAdOx1-S: AstraZeneca
BNT162b2: Pfizer
mRNA-1273: Moderna

 

As above, for boosters and with Omicron, it's around a 65% effectiveness, and reduction to around 45% after 10-14 weeks for Pfizer—with a bit more in both cases for Moderna (although Moderna boosters are 50 mcg mRNA compared to 30 mcg for Pfizer).

 

And here is the section, from the February 17 report, of the effectiveness and waning against Omicron BA.1 and BA.1:

Which, for boosters (dose 3), is around 70% after 2 to 4 weeks, and around 45% after only 10 weeks.

 

By the way, I looked at your Forbes article that you keep talking about, regarding a "82% efficiency of boosters." The studies mentioned in the article only talk about efficiency of boosters in general. The article doesn't cover the issue of waning of boosters, which is what we are talking about. It is ironic that you're asking me to provide information of waning of boosters, when your Forbes article doesn't even cover it.

 

Not only that, but the part of the article that does briefly talk about waning of effectiveness actually supports my argument:

 

Quote

It is well known that neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 begin declining in a matter of weeks after vaccination. Less well known is that the more durable B-Cell and T-Cell responses also decline over time. Taken together, these three weapons of the immune system lose their collective effectiveness over time.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The UK report and data you cited above was just for vaccine effectineness against symptomatic infection, which certainly is a laudable effect.

 

But the same report also included info on third shot boosters' effectiveness against COVID hospitalization and death.

 

Hospitalization (page 8):

 

"After a Pfizer booster (after either primary vaccination course), vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation started at around 90% dropping to around 75% after 10 to 14 weeks.

 

After a Moderna booster (mRNA-1273) (after either primary vaccination course), vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation was 90 to 95% up to 9 weeks after vaccination."

 

Death (page 11):

 

"Vaccine effectiveness against mortality with the Omicron variant has been estimated for those aged 50 years and older... at 2 or more weeks following a booster vaccine effectiveness was 95% against mortality."

 

Those aren't bad odds, and I'll certainly take those -- especially since the comparatively small remaining extent of risk is many many magnitudes smaller compared with the comparable COVID hospitalization and death risks to the unvaccinated.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1055620/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_7.pdf

 

The same report also included a discussion on how vaccines and boosters may reduce the likelihood of COVID transmission even in less common cases of so-called "breakthrough" infections among the vaccinated -- which has been a much debated issue here on the forum:

 

"Uninfected individuals cannot transmit; therefore, the vaccines are also provide some protection against transmission. There may be additional benefit, beyond that due to prevention of infection, if some of those individuals who become infected despite vaccination are also at a reduced risk of transmitting (for example, because of reduced duration or level of viral shedding). Several studies have provided evidence of reduced risk of household transmission from vaccinated cases compared to unvaccinated cases (16, 17, 18, 19)."

 

 

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, ThLT said:

You say that the effectiveness and waning of boosters in the UK Health Security Agency report is doubtful, because you think there are probably few people who were boosted in that sample and during that time? Here is what you said:

 

You keep repeating that. It's now the third or fourth time you've said something along those lines, and I've pointed this out to you each time, but you still seem to not grasp the issue with your point:

 

If the data in a study is about the waning of effectiveness of a booster, it means the sample of people of that data have had a booster. How is that difficult to understand? To have data about boosters requires that the sample has had a booster.

 

This makes your first point above entirely baseless.

 

Regarding your second point, you say that the entire report should essentially be ignored because of a "warning" in the report?

 

First of wall, it isn't a "warning." And most importantly, that isn't what the "warning" means or says at all.

 

Now, instead of continuing with the previous report—which you say was not reliable because too few people had been boosted at the time—let's take the comprehensive findings from the February 17 report of the UK Health Security Agency (which, by the way, is a government agency and team of epidemiologists, statisticians, and scientists responsible for the COVID pandemic in the England at the moment, if that wasn't clear):

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1055620/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_7.pdf

 

 

As above, for boosters and with Omicron, it's around a 65% effectiveness, and reduction to around 45% after 10-14 weeks for Pfizer—with a bit more in both cases for Moderna (although Moderna boosters are 50 mcg mRNA compared to 30 mcg for Pfizer).

 

And here is the section, from the February 17 report, of the effectiveness and waning against Omicron BA.1 and BA.1:

Which, for boosters (dose 3), is around 70% after 2 to 4 weeks, and around 45% after only 10 weeks.

 

By the way, I looked at your Forbes article that you keep talking about, regarding a "82% efficiency of boosters." The studies mentioned in the article only talk about efficiency of boosters in general. The article doesn't cover the issue of waning of boosters, which is what we are talking about. It is ironic that you're asking me to provide information of waning of boosters, when your Forbes article doesn't even cover it.

 

Not only that, but the part of the article that does briefly talk about waning of effectiveness actually supports my argument:

 

Regarding your concern about dclining B-cells and T-cells:

 

"After vaccination, some B cells become short-lived antibody-producing cells, while others join "germinal centers" in lymph nodes - essentially, a training camp where they mature and perfect their skills....analyses of blood, lymph node tissue and bone marrow from volunteers who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine showed germinal center reactions induced by the shots lasted at least six months, with antibodies becoming increasingly better at recognizing and attacking the spike protein of the original version of SARS-CoV-2, Ellebedy's team reported on Tuesday in Nature. https://news.yahoo.com/antibodies-induced-mrna-shots-improve-161321128.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

Simply put, the body does an initial surge of defenses when it senses a novel infection.  After the infection is eliminated the surge in antibodies, B-cells and T-cells is reduced, but the body retains the ability to surge again when a new infection is detected.

 

Vaccinations aren't perfect.  But they provide immediate and long term protection against illness and death with no observed long term consequences.  Infection causes immediate adverse effects, death for many, and many long term consequences that are still being discovered.  The choice between the two is easy.

[Bkk Brian]

14 hours ago, heybruce said:

Regarding your concern about dclining B-cells and T-cells:

 

"After vaccination, some B cells become short-lived antibody-producing cells, while others join "germinal centers" in lymph nodes - essentially, a training camp where they mature and perfect their skills....analyses of blood, lymph node tissue and bone marrow from volunteers who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine showed germinal center reactions induced by the shots lasted at least six months, with antibodies becoming increasingly better at recognizing and attacking the spike protein of the original version of SARS-CoV-2, Ellebedy's team reported on Tuesday in Nature. https://news.yahoo.com/antibodies-induced-mrna-shots-improve-161321128.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

Simply put, the body does an initial surge of defenses when it senses a novel infection.  After the infection is eliminated the surge in antibodies, B-cells and T-cells is reduced, but the body retains the ability to surge again when a new infection is detected.

 

Vaccinations aren't perfect.  But they provide immediate and long term protection against illness and death with no observed long term consequences.  Infection causes immediate adverse effects, death for many, and many long term consequences that are still being discovered.  The choice between the two is easy.

Indeed, T and B cell long term responses are the key to lasting protection so much so that they are looking at new vaccines:

 

COVID: why T cell vaccines could be the key to long-term immunity

 

now that we understand more about the role of T cells, the importance of having a broad T cell response, and the issue of antibodies waning, perhaps we should consider refocusing our vaccine strategies on generating T cells and on targeting more than just one protein.

Work is moving in this direction. Early trials of vaccines that can trigger much more broadly reactive helper and killer T cell responses have been completed, and several other T cell vaccines are also entering trials.

These T cell vaccines may be the key to boosting existing immunity and generating long-lived protection against severe disease from a whole range of COVID variants. If so, they would be a huge part of the world living more safely with COVID.

 

https://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/covid-why-t-cell-vaccines-could-be-the-key-to-long-term-immunity/

[ThLT]

Thanks for mentioning those points, @TallGuyJohninBKK. A discussion with you seems like it would amount to more (although I don't plan on doing so past this post).

 

The points I was making in my previous posts were about 1) the Omicron variant 2) boosters, and 3) especially about waning.

 

Some would say that, with Omicron, continuous boosters is overkill in many situations—extremely pro-vaccine people will say you should get multiple boosters every year to protect against Omicron, no matter your age, at risk of your life. I'm more in the middle, and dislike and don't agree with those at either extreme end of that spectrum.

 

On 2/19/2022 at 9:39 AM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Hospitalization (page 8):

 

"After a Pfizer booster (after either primary vaccination course), vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation started at around 90% dropping to around 75% after 10 to 14 weeks.

Yes, precisely. From 90% to 75% after only 10 to 14 weeks. You also left out the sentence before that, mentioning a 25-35% effectiveness after 25+ weeks:

 

Quote

Two doses of either AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1-S) or Pfizer (BNT162b2) vaccines was associated with a vaccine effectiveness of approximately 25 to 35% against hospitalisation following infection with the Omicron variant, after 25+ weeks. 

On 2/19/2022 at 9:39 AM, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Death (page 11):

 

"Vaccine effectiveness against mortality with the Omicron variant has been estimated for those aged 50 years and older... at 2 or more weeks following a booster vaccine effectiveness was 95% against mortality."

Yes, at 50 years and older. And for Omicron. "After 2 or more weeks following a booster." 

 

(By the way, posting carefully selected percentages, and specific older-aged demographics to make your points doesn't add weight to your arguments.)

 

Anyway, my point is that waning is considerable, and current vaccines aren't that effective for Omicron—and considerable lack of efficiency of preventing transmission being another important point. Those things are exactly the reasons why experts are recommending boosters every 6 months (from vaccines waning), and why Omicron-specific and variant-proof COVID vaccines are being researched.

 

[T Rex]

On 2/3/2022 at 3:35 PM, kotsak said:

That doesn't make any money so lets keep it under wraps.. ????

I think most people will see your response as a flippant, cynical statement. I believe however you more than hit the nail squarely on the head. Pfizer alone expects 65 BILLION in vaccine sales between 2021-22. Follow the money. There's much, much more to this scenario than meets the eye.

[onthedarkside]

A post with unsourced and unsubstantiated claims has been removed, along with ensuing replies.

 

[ThLT]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

Regarding your concern about dclining B-cells and T-cells:

It's not "my concern."

 

The quote about B and T cells was from your Forbes article that you posted. Either you:  1) didn't read the article, or 2) you are currently both refuting and contradicting yourself.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, ThLT said:

It's not "my concern."

 

The quote about B and T cells was from your Forbes article that you posted. Either you:  1) didn't read the article, or 2) you are currently both refuting and contradicting yourself.

My reply put the decline in B and T cells in context; it is a natural part of how the body prepares for long-term immunity.  It did not refute or contradict anything.

 

Your response, in which my reply is reduced to one out of context sentence, is a diversion.

[ThLT]

A section of one of my posts was removed, regarding the mildness of Omicron—whether one is vaccinated or not—which I considered common knowledge, but was questioned by a member, probably due to... a lack of that common knowledge.

 

Here is a substantiation of it, from The Lancet, with South Africa, which was around only 25% vaccinated at the time:

 

Quote

In The Lancet, Nicole Wolter and colleagues1 report data from more than 11 000 individuals (>80·0% aged 19–59 years; 55·9% women) with COVID-19 in South Africa indicative of significantly reduced odds of hospital admission for patients infected with the omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern (B.1.1.529) versus other SARS-CoV-2 variants during the same period (Oct 1–Nov 30, 2021; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·2, 95% CI 0·1–0·3) and significantly reduced odds of severe disease among patients infected by the omicron variant than among patients infected with the delta variant (B.1.617.2) in earlier epidemic waves (aOR 0·3, 0·2–0·5). 

Quote

These useful findings—derived from national-level COVID-19 hospital surveillance data linked with case, laboratory, and genomic data—represent a reassuring confirmation of early indicators that the omicron variant might lead to less severe disease and societal disruption, and have a reduced effect on hospital resources, than variants that dominated earlier pandemic waves.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00056-3/fulltext

 

But some extreme vaccine people will still probably be yelling on rooftops to get a second booster, even if you're 20-something years old with zero comorbidities. 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 hour ago, ThLT said:

A section of one of my posts was removed, regarding the mildness of Omicron—whether one is vaccinated or not—which I considered common knowledge, but was questioned by a member, probably due to... a lack of that common knowledge.

 

Here is a substantiation of it, from The Lancet, with South Africa, which was around only 25% vaccinated at the time:

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)00056-3/fulltext

 

Posts are removed for a reason as was yours where you made unsubstantiated claims about hospital admissions for the under 50's. So just a reminder, if you want to do that again get some official statistics.

 

Everybody knows Omicron is less virulent. 

 

25% less in both vaccinated and unvaccinated compared to Delta. So it still has teeth for the vulnerable and unvaccinated as hospital figures and deaths demonstrate in places like the US

 

 

[ThLT]

5 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Posts are removed for a reason as was yours where you made unsubstantiated claims about hospital admissions for the under 50's. So just a reminder, if you want to do that again get some official statistics.

 

Everybody knows Omicron is less virulent. 

 

25% less in both vaccinated and unvaccinated compared to Delta. So it still has teeth for the vulnerable and unvaccinated as hospital figures and deaths demonstrate in places like the US

So you asked me to provide proof of something you already knew. . . and now you even provide a study to support my initial claim? ???????? Reduced variant severity results in reduction of hospitalizations, by definition. For all age groups, and especially for those in the much healthier 20-45 age groups, and without comorbidities—since many in the older 50-75 age groups will be hospitalized no matter the variant.

 

Or are you saying that severity is much lower, but hospitalizations remain similar or even at higher rates? ???? How does that make any sense? Severity implies hospitalization and deaths.

And by the way, your medRxiv preprint study, which if you didn't know yet, is part of journal that entirely consists of non-peer-reviewed studies, seems to be incorrect. The hospital admissions for Omicron in South Africa which was 75% unvaccinated at the time—(Gauteng, in this case) is much closer to 50% of Delta:

https://www.ft.com/content/b0cd9239-f2df-4afc-912f-b3f87fc676ff

 

[Rimmer]

A misleading troll post and a reply have been removed

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, ThLT said:

So you asked me to provide proof of something you already knew. . . and now you even provide a study to support my initial claim? ???????? Reduced variant severity results in reduction of hospitalizations, by definition. For all age groups, and especially for those in the much healthier 20-45 age groups, and without comorbidities—since many in the older 50-75 age groups will be hospitalized no matter the variant.

 

Or are you saying that severity is much lower, but hospitalizations remain similar or even at higher rates? ???? How does that make any sense? Severity implies hospitalization and deaths.

And by the way, your medRxiv preprint study, which if you didn't know yet, is part of journal that entirely consists of non-peer-reviewed studies, seems to be incorrect. The hospital admissions for Omicron in South Africa which was 75% unvaccinated at the time—(Gauteng, in this case) is much closer to 50% of Delta:

https://www.ft.com/content/b0cd9239-f2df-4afc-912f-b3f87fc676ff

 

Maybe you're just not getting it. Together with its increased transmissibility, vaccine evasion ability and the unvaccinated the sheer numbers of Omicron cases admitted to hospitals has been more than any other wave in many countries, take a look at the US and Denmark where all age groups have been affected, you falsely claimed it was not affecting the under 50's

 

Omicron wave was brutal on kids; hospitalization rates 4X higher than delta’s

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/02/omicron-wave-was-brutal-on-kids-hospitalization-rates-4x-higher-than-deltas/

 

Omicron Wave Leads to New Highs of Hospitalized Children Who Have Covid-19

https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-drives-covid-19-child-hospitalizations-to-new-highs-11642242603

 

Omicron drives record cases of child Covid hospitalisation

https://www.ft.com/content/28be9d3f-0b12-4c33-bda9-fbff375c0b7e

 

Covid-19: Omicron variant is linked to steep rise in hospital admissions of very young children

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o110

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-hospitalizations