Well, that is a load of bullshit.
Statistically, it is most like that Covid-19 was going to mutate to become more contagious, which would statistically mean it would likely get less harmful
We are seeing that unfold. That has absolutely nothing to with the vaccine, which is still protecting the vaccinated much better than those that are not vaccinated. The virus gets weaker because all it "cares" about is reproducing. So if a mutation helps it be caught easier, it doesn't matter if it was weaker or not.
And with the vaccine, even against BA.4/5, the old vaccine is impacting how badly it can harm someone. Meanwhile, in a small study, it is appearing that unvax'd Omicron BA.1 infections are NOT leading to immunity in BA.4/5.
So the OP is just more misinformation.
Are you saying the study by 50 scientists published in Cell is disinfo?
They write:
"Viral variant infection elicits variant-specific antibodies, but prior mRNA vaccination imprints serological responses toward Wuhan-Hu-1 rather than variant antigens."
So what? You're drawing improper conclusions from this.
Yes, antibodies synthesized against the latest would be more effective
against that version. That does
not mean they'll be more effective against the
next version. That's what we are already seeing--the protection provided by infection with a given variant pretty much precludes reinfection with
that variant--but doesn't provide very good protection against others.
The vaccine-induced antibodies are effective against a much wider range of variants.
The problem is you are measuring the wrong endpoint. Lowering the probability a given variant infects you is not the goal, but rather a proxy for the real goal of being alive and unharmed. It's called the survivorship fallacy--you're not counting the ones that didn't survive so the numbers look better than they really are.
Let's put this into a simpler scenario so hopefully you can see the problem:
You're standing in the street. I'm standing 100' away from you, I take out a six-shooter, load one cartridge and spin the cylinder. Now, this isn't quite Russian Roulette as I'm a fair distance away and my eyes have never exactly gotten along with iron sights anyway.
I pull the trigger, what happens? Either it goes click or it goes bang, and if it goes bang maybe I kill you (1%), maybe I wing you (4%), maybe I miss (95%.) I spin the cylinder again and pull the trigger once more. Now, if it previously went bang it obviously does nothing, whereas if it didn't go bang before maybe it does this time, with the same outcomes as before. You're looking at it and seeing the gun that has already gone bang as being safer than the one that hasn't--but to look at that gun that has gone bang you have to have survived the previous bang.
However, let's consider 3600 targets and 3600 guns. Same scenario and odds, spin the cylinder and pull the trigger. There's a 1 in 6 that it fires, this leaves 6 targets dead, 24 targets winged, and 3570 targets still standing. Spin the cylinders and pull the trigger again. 600 of the guns are empty, the remaining 3000 are pointed at 3000 of those survivors. 5 targets die, 20 targets are winged, 2975 targets are still standing plus the 570 that were facing empty guns. Thus we have 3545 still standing.
The problem is you are looking at the 3570 initial survivors and concluding that only 25 get hurt/killed rather than 30, but you're failing to count those 30, in practice firing twice means 55 hurt/killed.
If the virus ever mutates to the point that the vaccine-induced antibodies are useless we would simply be back where we started--no protection. At no point is your
cumulative risk higher from having gotten the vaccine than not having gotten the vaccine.
alexberenson.substack.com
