Ben Shapiro lies about Omicron and vaccines

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You don’t consider a 35-40% vaccine effectiveness against infection successful?

The three studies I cited showed little to no "neutrilization" of Omicron from the regular 2-vax regimen.

We included individuals that received their primary series recently (<3 months), distantly (6–12 months), or an additional “booster” dose, while accounting for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Remarkably, neutralization of Omicron was undetectable in most [2-dose] vaccinees.

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S009 ... %2901496-3

Literally from the study linked in your quote above:

However, neutralization remains the leading correlate of protection from infection, and this study demonstrates that receiving a third dose of an mRNA-based vaccine effectively yields a potent cross-neutralizing response against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron, likely through increasing breadth and cross-reactivity of neutralizing antibodies. These findings support the need for rapid and synchronized widespread deployment of additional mRNA vaccine doses as a public health measure to curtail the emergence and spread of highly mutated SARS-CoV-2 variants.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here’s a horrendously spammy Conservative we site that promotes the Danish study:

https://conservativeinstitute.org/conse ... munity.htm

I used the Conservative website because I didn’t want to be accused of using a BS website like, I dunno, the CDC might use. From the linked article above:

”Vaccine effectiveness was reduced to around 40% against symptoms and 80% against severe illness for omicron in the fully vaccinated,” the study claimed. “Booster shots increased those numbers to 86% and 98% respectively.”

However, the study found that booster-vaccinated individuals were thought to be well-protected against hospitalization and less likely to transmit the virus.

So, again, cinepro, what’s your angle here? Even 40% VE against infection is awesomeballs when you start accounting for millions of infection vectors.

- Doc

[cinepro]

I agree the vaccines are highly effective against severe outcomes including hospitalization and death (I'm 2x + boosted, and think everyone else should be too), but it's like nails on a chalkboard when I hear people focus on cases and vaccinations.

Even if the vaccines did absolutely nothing with regard to preventing infection, yet have a significant effect on the outcome of infection in the manner that you describe, then that’s a ‘win’, and a highly desirable outcome.

Especially if they don’t prevent infection.

For any given patient, not preventing infection isn’t too different from never having been infected, if the end result is no symptoms, or mild symptoms, and no deleterious after-effects (like, death). That point can be illustrated by considering cases + vaccination, as opposed to just hospitalizations/deaths.

I agree. Eventually, we'll have to get to the point where we don't care if someone (especially someone asymptomatic) tests positive. But there's a lot of psychological ground to cover for a lot of people to get there.

[cinepro]

Here’s a horrendously spammy Conservative we site that promotes the Danish study:

https://conservativeinstitute.org/conse ... munity.htm

I used the Conservative website because I didn’t want to be accused of using a B.S. website like, I dunno, the CDC might use. From the linked article above:

”Vaccine effectiveness was reduced to around 40% against symptoms and 80% against severe illness for omicron in the fully vaccinated,” the study claimed. “Booster shots increased those numbers to 86% and 98% respectively.”

However, the study found that booster-vaccinated individuals were thought to be well-protected against hospitalization and less likely to transmit the virus.

So, again, cinepro, what’s your angle here? Even 40% VE against infection is awesomeballs when you start accounting for millions of infection vectors.

- Doc

I've been pretty clear that I've been talking about the effects of the 2-dose regiment, and fully agree that the booster appears to be very effective, especially against hospitalization and death. So I'm not sure what you are asking.

The issue, as I see it, is that some messaging about vaccines focuses on cases, and doesn't emphasize boosters.

For example, the Utah health department posted this a few days ago:

Today represents, by far, the single highest daily case count we have seen during the pandemic. Omicron has changed the landscape since its arrival last month. The number of cases we are reporting today is more than the total number of cases we reported over the first 68 days of the pandemic, combined.

“Unfortunately, we can expect numbers this high and possibly higher for the next few weeks as Omicron sweeps through our community,” says Dr. Leisha Nolen, state epidemiologist at the Utah Department of Health.

We have the tools to combat Omicron, but they don’t work if people won’t use them. If, for whatever reason, you have been putting off vaccination or getting boosted, it is clearly time for you to act. Vaccinations and boosters have been shown to reduce cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. They are the most important thing you can do to protect yourself, your loved ones, and your community.

“Our hospitals are already stretched well beyond their capacity and are canceling procedures. Please, go get your shot! Think about your plans and minimize your exposure to others and when you can’t, put on that mask!” Nolen said.

(Emphasis added)

https://www.Facebook.com/photo/?fbid=22 ... 9845411400

Now, after reading that, would you assume that vaccines, including the 2-dose regimen, will effectively reduce cases (i.e. detected infections) of omicron?

[Res Ipsa]

Thanks for that link Res.

Jesus. It really is worse than I thought.

271852587_235823818702104_2323332764410107819_n.jpg

Today, our governor announced some emergency measures to help out hospitals out. Jeremy Faust, one of the people that put this dashboard together, tweeted that he sent our governor a copy of this dashboard January 1 (we were red then, too) and specifically warned him that it looked like we were in trouble. It came out in the press conference that one of the larger hospital chains in the state has been telling nurses infected with COVID to return to work 24 hours after their fever goes away -- just don't work with immunocompromised patients.

As careful as we tried to be with long term care facilities after the initial wave, Omicron is tearing through them. This notion of "just protect the vulnerable" is nonsense. Just go get the damn shots.

[canpakes]

This notion of "just protect the vulnerable" is nonsense. Just go get the damn shots.

If one works around or comes into contact with vulnerable folks, then having gotten the shot prior to doing so is helping to “protect the vulnerable”.

I’m not sure why this point is lost on the anti-vax and anti-mask crowd that keeps chanting, “just protect the vulnerable”.

[Gunnar]

Hopefully scientists and doctors will be able to devise more effective vaccines and remedies for omicron and newer varieties yet to come.

A better remedy would be to protect the vulnerable and get people back to work to create a strong enough economy with enough workers to support the hospitals. Monoclonal antibody treatment and other therapeutics might be a better defense than focusing on vaccinating everyone.

How can someone like you, who presumably has some medical training, possibly advocate anything so foolish? Vaccines are relatively inexpensive, demonstrably reduce the chances of getting infected in the first place, don't ever require a stay in the hospital to administer, and, perhaps, even more importantly, have been demonstrated to mitigate the severity of the symptoms and reduce the chances of having to be hospitalized even if one gets covid, despite having been vaccinated. Compared to that, how can you possibly believe that monoclonal antibody treatment, which costs thousands of dollars per patient and sometimes requires a hospital stay is, a better defense than focusing on vaccinating everyone, which significantly reduces the probability of getting sick enough to need monoclonal antibody treatment in the first place?

What you seem to be proposing is like avoiding taking any fire prevention measures because effective fire-fighting techniques and equipment are readily available. Isn't taking fire prevention measures more reasonable and cost-effective than doing nothing to prevent a fire until it actually starts just because effective fire-fighting techniques and equipment are readily available?

Perhaps, like Governor DeSantis, you are invested in companies that produce expensive monoclonal antibody treatments? That might explain your attitude.

ETA: Effective therapeutics (provided that they are demonstrably effective) are needed, and I am glad there are some available, but don't you agree that preventing a disease in the first place is preferable to having to treat it?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Now, after reading that, would you assume that vaccines, including the 2-dose regimen, will effectively reduce cases (i.e. detected infections) of omicron?

Sure. And let’s say if everyone only got the two shots and no boosters, given what we’ve sourced and quoted on this thread what percentage of the population, again given the evidence, would be vaccine effective against infection?

- Doc

[cinepro]

Sure. And let’s say if everyone only got the two shots and no boosters, given what we’ve sourced and quoted on this thread what percentage of the population, again given the evidence, would be vaccine effective against infection?

- Doc

Depending on how long it had been since they got the two shots, the number seems to be somewhere between 30% and 0%.

But if we're talking about Omicron, I'm not sure the timeline for new vaccinations even works out. By the time newly vaxxed people could get their two shots and have them take full effect, I strongly suspect Omicron will be in the rearview mirror. Might be good preparation for the next variant though.

[Res Ipsa]

Sure. And let’s say if everyone only got the two shots and no boosters, given what we’ve sourced and quoted on this thread what percentage of the population, again given the evidence, would be vaccine effective against infection?

- Doc

Depending on how long it had been since they got the two shots, the number seems to be somewhere between 30% and 0%.

But if we're talking about Omicron, I'm not sure the timeline for new vaccinations even works out. By the time newly vaxxed people could get their two shots and have them take full effect, I strongly suspect Omicron will be in the rearview mirror. Might be good preparation for the next variant though.

Viruses don't know anything about rear view mirrors. All they know about is infecting cells and making copies of themselves. Even for Omicron, the unvaccinated should start now. Nobody knows today how long omicron will be the dominant variant. And as long as it can infect cells and make copies, it will continue to do so.