The way PCR tests have been used in this pandemic should have question marks attached:
1. What should threshold cycle be?
2. What does PCR test really tell you? Presence of live virus / disease? Or just mere
genetic material for the virus and we infer (correctly or not) that genetic material
is equal to live virus that then leads to disease.
But let's leave that aside for the moment. PCR test seems the best tool we have
at the moment. Although, I don't know why traditional approach (symptoms of some disease -> check for what disease / virus you have) was abandoned.
The questions you raise in this post are pretty much what I have been wondering for a while now:
1. "Natural immunity": we can start speculating whether infection from the old Wuhan strain or alpha/delta variants protect from omicron infection. You've analyzed this data in this post. But we have no idea whether infection from Omicron confers any long term immunity from Omicron itself or future variants. We know that for many coronaviruses immunity doesn't last very long. We repeatedly get colds all the time and immunity lasts only 6-8 weeks.
2. Is Omicron variant still SARS-Cov2 or is it really a different virus and it should be called SARS-Cov3? If it evades prior infection immunity (from OG Wuhan and alpha/delta) then it's really a different virus.
But as one of the other commenters pointed out, the data collection has been very disappointing. Whether this is done on purpose or because we are just simply incompetent is a separate question.
I am finding it rather frustrating that we are still splitting hair whether vaccines work or not, whether masks and other measures work, etc. The fact that it's not obvious
(whether they do or to what extent) pretty much answers the question. In any other circumstance or endeavor you pretty much know right away whether you are better off or not. Two years into "two weeks to flatten the curve" we
a) still haven't flattened the curve
b) we have no f**king idea where we are in this pandemic
Are we in a better place than in march 2020 (ie, it's over, Omicron will infect everybody and we have gained herd immunity), is this as good as it will get
(it's endemic, we will be getting seasonal waves just like with flu and this virus will compete with flu, but at least severity and mortality will be much much lower) or
is this just calm before the storm and we are all f**ked in a year or two (as per Vanden Bossche's hypothesis)?
The ephemeral link between agent and disease is true for all viruses. A "sterilizing" vaccine can hide these mysteries, if and only if we force all children everywhere to take them. Otherwise the best thing is not to pay any attention - worked fine for influenza for 100 years. Imagine a world with no flu in 2019, suddenly being told it will have the flu now, and shutting down. That's essentially all that happened. We should have paid no attention at all to SARS-CoV-2. The tapestry of life for the average person in the present era would still contain less tragedy than the tapestry of life for someone in 1980.
So anyway, everything you say about the lack of progress in understanding SARS-CoV-2 was inevitable, totally predicted by human history. They were still playing around with whether polio was linked more to environment than the virus until Enders fixed the culture method, and isolated a viremia-capable wild strain. "The part played by acquired immunity to poliomyelitis is still completely uncertain, and the practical problem of preventing infantile paralysis has not been solved. It is even doubtful whether it ever will be solved." - that was in 1945, after decades of obsessing over the virus https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/David-Bodian%27s-contribution-to-the-development-of-Nathanson/85645d5485dd3fcc7a822eaf53b31f3d42c58be1
But if the vaccine hadn't stopped paralysis, the mystery of polio would have remained, despite finally being able to isolate wild virus. These mysteries can't be solved, only hidden.
Thus PCR never had any value except as a check against two "artificial" predictions, i.e. predictions that never should have been made: that the Covid vaccines would prevent infection, and that natural immunity would not confer protection against disease.
It performed those function pretty well in 2021, if only because of the accident that SARS-CoV-2 required TMPRSS2 and nasal cells don't express as much of it (see, again, the review of the Peacock et al. study at https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/omicrons-generally-less-harmful-mechanisms "However only a low proportion of cells in the upper respiratory tract express both ACE2 and TMPRSS2").
I think PCR will no longer perform that function, going forward. I'm leaning toward betting that Omicron represents the virus returning to "coronavirus entropy," and it won't roll back up the hill into requiring TMPRSS2 and causing more severe disease, but don't hold me to that yet.
I never paid much attention to various pandemics / epidemics (HIV wasn't a big thing in Europe in the 80s, SARS, H1-N1, ebola, zika, West Nile, and of course foot-and-mouth and mad-cow. Did I forget anything?) The only reason I pay attention to this one is because my life has been turned upside down.
If we look at home many labs and companies have been playing with SARS-Cov2 vaccines and treatments and performing various animal trials, would it really be that surprising if some other new variant emerged (eg, hypothesis of mouse origin of omicorn)?
"I don't know why traditional approach (symptoms of some disease -> check for what disease / virus you have) was abandoned."
The cynical among us would say it's the same reason they changed the definition of "herd immunity" and even "vaccine" — to feed the fear-mongering juggernaut.
In the beginning when nothing (in the west at least) was known about the virus, test seemed the only way to confirm that you've been infected. So, I can understand testing early in the pandemic when everybody still thought that the virus spread could be stopped.
But IMHO after April 2020 mass testing doesn't make much sense (other than in the case when somebody comes to a doctor with symptoms).
The danger that arises from all these open questions, in my view, is that more and more people no longer know/understand what it means to be able to feel healthy - and that illnesses must be a part of life. And be it only the simple cold. From the point of view of a population, the last few months have caused this population to become more and more susceptible and less and less able to cope with the challenges of bio-logical life.
I agree -- if you need a test to figure out if you don't "feel" well... then we are really screwed. When Omicron came out, everybody started panicking and testing with no symptoms!
I have a few questions for all the number specialists, table designers and statistics interpreters:
After two years of data accumulation in the context of the ''pandemic'', does it make any sense at all to extract any statement from this mountain of data? Does the result of a data evaluation still serve any truth at all?
Why do I ask? Well, in the meantime there are so many overlaps in the definition of unvaccinated and vaccinated, of recovered and diseased, to which constantly changing definitions differing from country to country are added, that there are no longer any possibilities for comparison with which any trends or conspicuous features can be uncovered. All of the data only creates a nebulous, ever-changing picture that, in its constant succession of snapshots, creates more confusion than clarity.
Does it still somehow make sense to put so much energy into data evaluation day after day, if no one is able to produce ONE clear picture from all the different evaluations that could really help us? I don't want to diminish in any way the efforts and expertise of many people who make their evaluation skills available to the general public on a daily basis, I just wonder what drives you? Do you feel that your efforts are really bearing fruit, that something good is coming out of your work for the community? Something that will expose all those who have been lying to us and leading us around by the nose for months now. Something that many would like to see happen, of course, but is always unlikely to happen - at least that's how I feel.
It seems to me that this is exactly the intention behind all the constantly changing definitions using non-standardized tests with ever questionable interpretations on their part. As if the aim is to generate as much confusion as possible in the data jungle so that the general public completely loses its orientation and at some point stops asking questions altogether.
I would be very interested in your opinion on this and I would like to thank all of you who are always putting so much energy into bringing light into the darkness, even if the darkness never really seems to go away.
There's value to theory and to comprehension - but at the same time, "narrative" is just what is left in the brain after naked observation of reality is erased.
When you have just stopped a large vehicle, it is safe to go backward; your situational awareness is accurate. Once even a few seconds go by, you no longer have any idea what is behind you. The mental map of reality fades that quickly. I think of JJ Couey still putting up the equation over the subway video where there will be fewer deaths after a year - has he not looked at the US death rates since summer 2021? They were higher. Reality changes; so must the mental map.
Aren't there always more ways to change reality, or rather move it in a desired direction, at least in the short term? And isn't our mind also influenced and trained to see reality in a predetermined way? This is exactly the point I wanted to address with my questions above. The more inconsistencies and truths come on the table, by our heroes of the numbers crunching guild, the more energy the ''opposite side'' mobilizes to further shape/prescribe reality according to their ideas/plans. Have we really gained anything in the last few months? Currently there are more tests and more ''cases'' than ever before, more guidelines, more restrictions for more people, more negative effects, more ''vaccinations'', more scaremongering ... the more so the more the truth is revealed - and the other way around.
Haha - perhaps that is the answer. Feed the monster so much energy that the fuse breaks. Indeed, the collective unconscious of the Believers in the Experts RE Omicron seemed to wobble in that direction throughout December, though now the cult is back into its trance at least where I am.
I do see it as my responsibility not to take part in being tested, as I said in reply to David's comment below; and have made it a point not to adopt a "weekly update" format like some other subs.
Or deprive them of the energy they need to adapt to the truth revelations, so that they ultimately starve to death. However, amplifying unpredictability comes into play as the end approaches. So rather strive for some kind of balance, where the ''good guys'' and the ''bad guys'' can somehow balance each other out? Questions and ever more questions. Maybe one day LIFE PHICTION finds an answer. A universial one. Haha, indeed.
Brian, much respect for your work, but this particular analysis has a fatal flaw, which is testing bias. The vaccinated/boosted are *far* less likely to be tested for coronavirus infection (at least in Israel). That became even worse with the reinstatement of the green pass regulations during the summer/fall wave (where unvaccinated or unboostered were getting tested like twice a week to keep working or studying at uni, not to mention if they wanted to go to a restaurant, movie, etc), intensified when the green pass regulations started applying to the unboostered in October (and the number of people without a green pass increased by like a million), and it has only gotten worse now with all kinds of testing double standards in the face of Omicron.
So let's imagine a scenario where nobody has coronavirus but there is a certain chance the test will return a false-positive. With the non-vaccinated/unboostered testing at a much (!) higher rate than the unvaccinated/unboostered, all of the results you found could easily be driven just by that difference. It's impossible to know how much is due to that and how much is due to any "real" difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed. So clearly the conclusions you reach here far exceed any reasonable inferences one can draw on from the data.
It should be pointed out that ALL of the research coming out of Israel (and most other places) suffers from this bias. There was a recent paper that used data on test results from airport arrivals, which did not suffer from this bias because nearly 100% of people arriving are required to take a PCR test regardless of their vaccination status. They found a much lower efficacy for the booster than the official Israeli studies.
Now get this: the day after the authors first circulated their results, the Ministry of Health radically changed the vaxxed/unvaxxed numbers on airport PCR results on the dashboard to try to fit the narrative, and made more changes a couple of days later. Within a day or two of the paper finally going up on the SSRN pre-print site, the MoH just removed the relevant data from the dashboard and stopped reporting it.
Moral of the story: the data coming out of Israel are totally unreliable and actively manipulated to support the narrative.
Again that word. “Unreliable.” I have relied on the dashboard to make predictions that held up for months https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boostermania#footnote-anchor-4 - if there are any other publications from early August predicting both infection efficacy and severe efficacy on the same page that still hold up today, anywhere on Earth, I am not aware of them. Should I take my predictions back anyway because “those rascally dashboard wonks messed with the airport tile”?
Uneven standards for screening testing and outcomes (hospitalizations) have been a hazard everywhere throughout this whole “game.” The airport fiasco is just an artifact of Israel’s transparency - the change in standards happened in the light of day, whereas elsewhere the data is so uneven that you can only guess when these changes happen.
On the specifics of the passport, obviously you might be right. I think the relative risk would skew higher for the young, however. And still find the Israel numbers an argument against inferring that a “problem” with vaccinated + infected immunity is driving Omicron trends.
I shouldn't have muddied the waters by talking about the general unreliability of the data. The key point is testing bias, which you agree is a problem but then ignore. But it's unclear to me why you ignore it. You seem to be saying that you made an accurate prediction in the past based on the same biased data, so therefore you can continue to do so. I don't think it follows.
But let's look at your original prediction from back in August. Your post is very clever and makes good points and again, kudos to you for all the thorough and brilliant work you've been doing.
As I understand the post, you looked at the waning efficacy comparing the rates of people who were pcr-positive vs. a calculation of hospitalizations. You found that although there seemed to be waning efficacy in terms of PCR-positivity, there did not seem to be as steep a drop-off in waning efficacy of hospitalization among 60+ and perhaps even increased efficacy among <60.
You then made a prediction that due to the immunity provided by the shots, it would not continue to provide mucosal immunity but would continue to provide immunity to severe disease/hospitalization.
That seems like a reasonable extrapolation from the data. But it's worth pointing out that such an extrapolation relies on a comparison of two different testing regimes: hospitals vs. community, with each perhaps having a different degree of bias (which can also change over time).
Here you are only looking at a single regime (which may however include both community and hospital). On top of that, the testing bias is compounded in your analysis here. Why? If non-vaccinated/unboostered were more likely to get tested earlier on, then they are more likely to have comparable PCR tests to check against weeks/months later; and (2) PCR tests can be positive long after infection is over, and this comparison does not have a way of distinguishing between new infection vs. viral debris that hasn't cleared the system since last infection, which will only compound the bias from (1) above.
So with respect to your calculations: your estimate of "Omicron susceptibles" is biased because the 'previously PCR positive' is going to under-estimate the rate of previous positivity among vaccinated/boostered compared to not; your estimate of Omicron infections is going to under-estimate the rate of infections among the vaccinated/boostered compared to not; the rate of reinfections can only include those with a previous positive pcr test, which will (again) under-estimate the rate of previous positivity among vaccinated/boostered.
None of that is mentioned or taken into account in your calculations -- not even to provide a "lower-bound" estimate that tries to take the bias into account. To say that you did it before so you can do it again doesn't take into account the differences in the assumptions/domains of the two analyses.
Good - as long as we're not in "ad dashboardinem" territory anymore, and are sticking to specifics.
A lot of the hypotheticals you are proposing have corresponding predictable signals. "Over screening of unvaccinated" + "90 day window elapsing" + "false positives or re-positives for +90 day residues" would lead to a wave of reinfection hits in November and December. You can sort-of see this in the South Africa reinfection data because of the huge prevalence of immunosuppressed patients. Here the wave doesn't show until there is an outside factor. Input 1 and 3, additionally, would lead to higher "overall per 100k" rates for the unvaccinated (especially since in those graphs, the "fully vaccinated" include all previously recovered + at least one dose). The per 100k is equal.
These are two loose "controls" against the theory that the overrepresentation in reinfections is an artifact of higher testing. I argue that it is an artifact of "higher percentage of previously infected." I also acknowledged that essentially all PCR positives in the Omicron era can be tentatively thought of as "false," but we have to deal with them as what they are. A trend that will be in the data, that will be different from the status quo beforehand, and (I place a bet) won't turn out to be a "vaccine smoking gun." If "our side" doesn't acknowledge it then the "other side" will get to write whatever narrative they want with it.
The proof for will be in the pudding. The dashboard data for July predicted the drop in infection efficacy everywhere else. I also relied on it to make my prediction of durable "severe efficacy" in early August - so, it was literally reliable.
Whether the data for the last month is also predictive, we will know eventually. For now, I am comfortable with where I have placed my chips.
It's not really a question of data. Data has indicated it's insignificant risk for most of the world since the beginning, yet we've been herded to stampede, and continue to be too dumb to resist the urge to panic. It's like we're addicted to adrenalin and cortisol. We're being manipulated in an epic scam. The people manipulating us will continue it as long as we allow it.
"Joe" is buying half a billion tests. What do you think that will do to "cases" between now and July? Efficacy is irrelevant. And, of course, they'll pick a new mutation out of the inevitable parade and give it a scary new name -- omega? -- and terrify the weak and stupid all over again. Pharma will produce a new "must have" vax. The addicts need their fix. Where's the line for testing, and the next boost? Save us, "Joe"! Give it to us harder!
"The proof for it will be in the <jabbing>. The dashboard data for July predicted the drop in infection efficacy everywhere else. I also relied on it to make my prediction of durable "severe efficacy" in early August - so, it was literally reliable.
Whether the data for the last month is also predictive, we will know eventually. For now, I am comfortable with where I have placed my <vaccs>."
Infections are uninteresting. Seems to be just a metric of how many tests they run, and how much they crank up pcr reps. Sickness is interesting. Any clues how many are sick? How sick are they? Rumors say the currently prevalent strains aren't very virulent. Seems like they'd be touting hospital overflows, and morgues, if that was happening. I'm guessing it's not really much of a problem any more.
We should avoid playing the "cases" game. It's a rigged game.
You have never had the pleasure of having your anterior sinuses scraped until you are coughing and eyes welling up? And departed while dabbing the tears from your eyes, aware that it is all meaningless anyway? And waited in non-suspense for at least 48 hours to get the email that exempts you (for the next day or two) from social/employer banishment? I am jealous!
If you want to see brain-lock, tell someone you had an illness and when they ask if you've been tested for COVID, tell them "nope, I have no interest in being tested for COVID". They stare at you like you just started speaking Martian.
I was mask-less at a California Smart & Final the other day, and imagined what I would say if someone asked me to put one on (no one did): "It's ok, I'm unvaccinated."
The only thing you need to know to throw into doubt all PCR tests is how PCR works. There's a reason the person who invented PCR said it should never be used as a test for infection.
Fun fact - PCR nasal tests should go in at a 0° horizontal angle to the head. Half of the photographs that get onto news stories nonetheless display the brainpan-scratching 45° maneuver.
Thanks for that link - So Omicron does still seem to "land" in the mouth before it spreads. The higher affinity for nasal cells could still explain why natural immunity is not able to suppress spread before a nasal PCR test catches the encounter. Still might mean that nasal PCR cycle counts have almost nothing to do with transmission; it is always just assumed / asserted as far as I can tell. Funny that the three-day delay is only "just now" a cause for concern...
Thank you. The Israel dashboard does include speed tests in some of the topline results, as well as one of the graphs. If the guide is to be trusted, the bulk of graphs for cases including the "reinfections" should be PCR only (and positives less than 90 days apart excluded). Hopefully...
Thank you for the information - this is news to me. If one could ever keep up with the news. But in the current USSA one cannot get a PCR or antigen test readily so I am interested in seeing future data.
I would speculate it would have more to do with residual antibodies outcompeting Natural Antibodies + lower presence of resident T Cells in nasal airway post natural infection, again channelling vanden Bossche a bit. However, I am reluctant to form positive conclusions from the "unvaccinated" reinfection rates (vs using them to rule out assumptions about +vaccinated reinfections).
As suggested in the post, for example, the "unvaccinated overall" for some age groups could have near-equal absolute counts of previously PCR-positive. So this would remove the "at a glance" problem. I think it is a combination of factors, plus a bit of denominator-inaccuracy, and the per-previously infected +unvaccinated vs +dosed risk ratio is probably in the 1.77 to 2.5 range that shows among the young (an artifact of the recently-dosed having higher antibodies, and of the unvaccinated infected being infected earlier on average).
The way PCR tests have been used in this pandemic should have question marks attached:
1. What should threshold cycle be?
2. What does PCR test really tell you? Presence of live virus / disease? Or just mere
genetic material for the virus and we infer (correctly or not) that genetic material
is equal to live virus that then leads to disease.
But let's leave that aside for the moment. PCR test seems the best tool we have
at the moment. Although, I don't know why traditional approach (symptoms of some disease -> check for what disease / virus you have) was abandoned.
The questions you raise in this post are pretty much what I have been wondering for a while now:
1. "Natural immunity": we can start speculating whether infection from the old Wuhan strain or alpha/delta variants protect from omicron infection. You've analyzed this data in this post. But we have no idea whether infection from Omicron confers any long term immunity from Omicron itself or future variants. We know that for many coronaviruses immunity doesn't last very long. We repeatedly get colds all the time and immunity lasts only 6-8 weeks.
2. Is Omicron variant still SARS-Cov2 or is it really a different virus and it should be called SARS-Cov3? If it evades prior infection immunity (from OG Wuhan and alpha/delta) then it's really a different virus.
But as one of the other commenters pointed out, the data collection has been very disappointing. Whether this is done on purpose or because we are just simply incompetent is a separate question.
I am finding it rather frustrating that we are still splitting hair whether vaccines work or not, whether masks and other measures work, etc. The fact that it's not obvious
(whether they do or to what extent) pretty much answers the question. In any other circumstance or endeavor you pretty much know right away whether you are better off or not. Two years into "two weeks to flatten the curve" we
a) still haven't flattened the curve
b) we have no f**king idea where we are in this pandemic
Are we in a better place than in march 2020 (ie, it's over, Omicron will infect everybody and we have gained herd immunity), is this as good as it will get
(it's endemic, we will be getting seasonal waves just like with flu and this virus will compete with flu, but at least severity and mortality will be much much lower) or
is this just calm before the storm and we are all f**ked in a year or two (as per Vanden Bossche's hypothesis)?
The ephemeral link between agent and disease is true for all viruses. A "sterilizing" vaccine can hide these mysteries, if and only if we force all children everywhere to take them. Otherwise the best thing is not to pay any attention - worked fine for influenza for 100 years. Imagine a world with no flu in 2019, suddenly being told it will have the flu now, and shutting down. That's essentially all that happened. We should have paid no attention at all to SARS-CoV-2. The tapestry of life for the average person in the present era would still contain less tragedy than the tapestry of life for someone in 1980.
So anyway, everything you say about the lack of progress in understanding SARS-CoV-2 was inevitable, totally predicted by human history. They were still playing around with whether polio was linked more to environment than the virus until Enders fixed the culture method, and isolated a viremia-capable wild strain. "The part played by acquired immunity to poliomyelitis is still completely uncertain, and the practical problem of preventing infantile paralysis has not been solved. It is even doubtful whether it ever will be solved." - that was in 1945, after decades of obsessing over the virus https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/David-Bodian%27s-contribution-to-the-development-of-Nathanson/85645d5485dd3fcc7a822eaf53b31f3d42c58be1
But if the vaccine hadn't stopped paralysis, the mystery of polio would have remained, despite finally being able to isolate wild virus. These mysteries can't be solved, only hidden.
Thus PCR never had any value except as a check against two "artificial" predictions, i.e. predictions that never should have been made: that the Covid vaccines would prevent infection, and that natural immunity would not confer protection against disease.
It performed those function pretty well in 2021, if only because of the accident that SARS-CoV-2 required TMPRSS2 and nasal cells don't express as much of it (see, again, the review of the Peacock et al. study at https://nutritionmatters.substack.com/p/omicrons-generally-less-harmful-mechanisms "However only a low proportion of cells in the upper respiratory tract express both ACE2 and TMPRSS2").
I think PCR will no longer perform that function, going forward. I'm leaning toward betting that Omicron represents the virus returning to "coronavirus entropy," and it won't roll back up the hill into requiring TMPRSS2 and causing more severe disease, but don't hold me to that yet.
I never paid much attention to various pandemics / epidemics (HIV wasn't a big thing in Europe in the 80s, SARS, H1-N1, ebola, zika, West Nile, and of course foot-and-mouth and mad-cow. Did I forget anything?) The only reason I pay attention to this one is because my life has been turned upside down.
If we look at home many labs and companies have been playing with SARS-Cov2 vaccines and treatments and performing various animal trials, would it really be that surprising if some other new variant emerged (eg, hypothesis of mouse origin of omicorn)?
"I don't know why traditional approach (symptoms of some disease -> check for what disease / virus you have) was abandoned."
The cynical among us would say it's the same reason they changed the definition of "herd immunity" and even "vaccine" — to feed the fear-mongering juggernaut.
In the beginning when nothing (in the west at least) was known about the virus, test seemed the only way to confirm that you've been infected. So, I can understand testing early in the pandemic when everybody still thought that the virus spread could be stopped.
But IMHO after April 2020 mass testing doesn't make much sense (other than in the case when somebody comes to a doctor with symptoms).
and the true trailblazer in redefinition, "pandemic"
The danger that arises from all these open questions, in my view, is that more and more people no longer know/understand what it means to be able to feel healthy - and that illnesses must be a part of life. And be it only the simple cold. From the point of view of a population, the last few months have caused this population to become more and more susceptible and less and less able to cope with the challenges of bio-logical life.
I agree -- if you need a test to figure out if you don't "feel" well... then we are really screwed. When Omicron came out, everybody started panicking and testing with no symptoms!
I have a few questions for all the number specialists, table designers and statistics interpreters:
After two years of data accumulation in the context of the ''pandemic'', does it make any sense at all to extract any statement from this mountain of data? Does the result of a data evaluation still serve any truth at all?
Why do I ask? Well, in the meantime there are so many overlaps in the definition of unvaccinated and vaccinated, of recovered and diseased, to which constantly changing definitions differing from country to country are added, that there are no longer any possibilities for comparison with which any trends or conspicuous features can be uncovered. All of the data only creates a nebulous, ever-changing picture that, in its constant succession of snapshots, creates more confusion than clarity.
Does it still somehow make sense to put so much energy into data evaluation day after day, if no one is able to produce ONE clear picture from all the different evaluations that could really help us? I don't want to diminish in any way the efforts and expertise of many people who make their evaluation skills available to the general public on a daily basis, I just wonder what drives you? Do you feel that your efforts are really bearing fruit, that something good is coming out of your work for the community? Something that will expose all those who have been lying to us and leading us around by the nose for months now. Something that many would like to see happen, of course, but is always unlikely to happen - at least that's how I feel.
It seems to me that this is exactly the intention behind all the constantly changing definitions using non-standardized tests with ever questionable interpretations on their part. As if the aim is to generate as much confusion as possible in the data jungle so that the general public completely loses its orientation and at some point stops asking questions altogether.
I would be very interested in your opinion on this and I would like to thank all of you who are always putting so much energy into bringing light into the darkness, even if the darkness never really seems to go away.
There's value to theory and to comprehension - but at the same time, "narrative" is just what is left in the brain after naked observation of reality is erased.
When you have just stopped a large vehicle, it is safe to go backward; your situational awareness is accurate. Once even a few seconds go by, you no longer have any idea what is behind you. The mental map of reality fades that quickly. I think of JJ Couey still putting up the equation over the subway video where there will be fewer deaths after a year - has he not looked at the US death rates since summer 2021? They were higher. Reality changes; so must the mental map.
''Reality changes; so must the mental map.''
Aren't there always more ways to change reality, or rather move it in a desired direction, at least in the short term? And isn't our mind also influenced and trained to see reality in a predetermined way? This is exactly the point I wanted to address with my questions above. The more inconsistencies and truths come on the table, by our heroes of the numbers crunching guild, the more energy the ''opposite side'' mobilizes to further shape/prescribe reality according to their ideas/plans. Have we really gained anything in the last few months? Currently there are more tests and more ''cases'' than ever before, more guidelines, more restrictions for more people, more negative effects, more ''vaccinations'', more scaremongering ... the more so the more the truth is revealed - and the other way around.
Haha - perhaps that is the answer. Feed the monster so much energy that the fuse breaks. Indeed, the collective unconscious of the Believers in the Experts RE Omicron seemed to wobble in that direction throughout December, though now the cult is back into its trance at least where I am.
I do see it as my responsibility not to take part in being tested, as I said in reply to David's comment below; and have made it a point not to adopt a "weekly update" format like some other subs.
Or deprive them of the energy they need to adapt to the truth revelations, so that they ultimately starve to death. However, amplifying unpredictability comes into play as the end approaches. So rather strive for some kind of balance, where the ''good guys'' and the ''bad guys'' can somehow balance each other out? Questions and ever more questions. Maybe one day LIFE PHICTION finds an answer. A universial one. Haha, indeed.
Brian, much respect for your work, but this particular analysis has a fatal flaw, which is testing bias. The vaccinated/boosted are *far* less likely to be tested for coronavirus infection (at least in Israel). That became even worse with the reinstatement of the green pass regulations during the summer/fall wave (where unvaccinated or unboostered were getting tested like twice a week to keep working or studying at uni, not to mention if they wanted to go to a restaurant, movie, etc), intensified when the green pass regulations started applying to the unboostered in October (and the number of people without a green pass increased by like a million), and it has only gotten worse now with all kinds of testing double standards in the face of Omicron.
So let's imagine a scenario where nobody has coronavirus but there is a certain chance the test will return a false-positive. With the non-vaccinated/unboostered testing at a much (!) higher rate than the unvaccinated/unboostered, all of the results you found could easily be driven just by that difference. It's impossible to know how much is due to that and how much is due to any "real" difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed. So clearly the conclusions you reach here far exceed any reasonable inferences one can draw on from the data.
It should be pointed out that ALL of the research coming out of Israel (and most other places) suffers from this bias. There was a recent paper that used data on test results from airport arrivals, which did not suffer from this bias because nearly 100% of people arriving are required to take a PCR test regardless of their vaccination status. They found a much lower efficacy for the booster than the official Israeli studies.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3963606
Now get this: the day after the authors first circulated their results, the Ministry of Health radically changed the vaxxed/unvaxxed numbers on airport PCR results on the dashboard to try to fit the narrative, and made more changes a couple of days later. Within a day or two of the paper finally going up on the SSRN pre-print site, the MoH just removed the relevant data from the dashboard and stopped reporting it.
Moral of the story: the data coming out of Israel are totally unreliable and actively manipulated to support the narrative.
Again that word. “Unreliable.” I have relied on the dashboard to make predictions that held up for months https://unglossed.substack.com/p/boostermania#footnote-anchor-4 - if there are any other publications from early August predicting both infection efficacy and severe efficacy on the same page that still hold up today, anywhere on Earth, I am not aware of them. Should I take my predictions back anyway because “those rascally dashboard wonks messed with the airport tile”?
Uneven standards for screening testing and outcomes (hospitalizations) have been a hazard everywhere throughout this whole “game.” The airport fiasco is just an artifact of Israel’s transparency - the change in standards happened in the light of day, whereas elsewhere the data is so uneven that you can only guess when these changes happen.
On the specifics of the passport, obviously you might be right. I think the relative risk would skew higher for the young, however. And still find the Israel numbers an argument against inferring that a “problem” with vaccinated + infected immunity is driving Omicron trends.
I shouldn't have muddied the waters by talking about the general unreliability of the data. The key point is testing bias, which you agree is a problem but then ignore. But it's unclear to me why you ignore it. You seem to be saying that you made an accurate prediction in the past based on the same biased data, so therefore you can continue to do so. I don't think it follows.
But let's look at your original prediction from back in August. Your post is very clever and makes good points and again, kudos to you for all the thorough and brilliant work you've been doing.
As I understand the post, you looked at the waning efficacy comparing the rates of people who were pcr-positive vs. a calculation of hospitalizations. You found that although there seemed to be waning efficacy in terms of PCR-positivity, there did not seem to be as steep a drop-off in waning efficacy of hospitalization among 60+ and perhaps even increased efficacy among <60.
You then made a prediction that due to the immunity provided by the shots, it would not continue to provide mucosal immunity but would continue to provide immunity to severe disease/hospitalization.
That seems like a reasonable extrapolation from the data. But it's worth pointing out that such an extrapolation relies on a comparison of two different testing regimes: hospitals vs. community, with each perhaps having a different degree of bias (which can also change over time).
Here you are only looking at a single regime (which may however include both community and hospital). On top of that, the testing bias is compounded in your analysis here. Why? If non-vaccinated/unboostered were more likely to get tested earlier on, then they are more likely to have comparable PCR tests to check against weeks/months later; and (2) PCR tests can be positive long after infection is over, and this comparison does not have a way of distinguishing between new infection vs. viral debris that hasn't cleared the system since last infection, which will only compound the bias from (1) above.
So with respect to your calculations: your estimate of "Omicron susceptibles" is biased because the 'previously PCR positive' is going to under-estimate the rate of previous positivity among vaccinated/boostered compared to not; your estimate of Omicron infections is going to under-estimate the rate of infections among the vaccinated/boostered compared to not; the rate of reinfections can only include those with a previous positive pcr test, which will (again) under-estimate the rate of previous positivity among vaccinated/boostered.
None of that is mentioned or taken into account in your calculations -- not even to provide a "lower-bound" estimate that tries to take the bias into account. To say that you did it before so you can do it again doesn't take into account the differences in the assumptions/domains of the two analyses.
Good - as long as we're not in "ad dashboardinem" territory anymore, and are sticking to specifics.
A lot of the hypotheticals you are proposing have corresponding predictable signals. "Over screening of unvaccinated" + "90 day window elapsing" + "false positives or re-positives for +90 day residues" would lead to a wave of reinfection hits in November and December. You can sort-of see this in the South Africa reinfection data because of the huge prevalence of immunosuppressed patients. Here the wave doesn't show until there is an outside factor. Input 1 and 3, additionally, would lead to higher "overall per 100k" rates for the unvaccinated (especially since in those graphs, the "fully vaccinated" include all previously recovered + at least one dose). The per 100k is equal.
These are two loose "controls" against the theory that the overrepresentation in reinfections is an artifact of higher testing. I argue that it is an artifact of "higher percentage of previously infected." I also acknowledged that essentially all PCR positives in the Omicron era can be tentatively thought of as "false," but we have to deal with them as what they are. A trend that will be in the data, that will be different from the status quo beforehand, and (I place a bet) won't turn out to be a "vaccine smoking gun." If "our side" doesn't acknowledge it then the "other side" will get to write whatever narrative they want with it.
"If you believe a deceased family member or coworker has been re-exposed to the virus, please have them tested immediately." - LOL
Take the Israeli data with three doses of sea salt. There is no point in doing any granular analysis of unreliable data.
The proof for will be in the pudding. The dashboard data for July predicted the drop in infection efficacy everywhere else. I also relied on it to make my prediction of durable "severe efficacy" in early August - so, it was literally reliable.
Whether the data for the last month is also predictive, we will know eventually. For now, I am comfortable with where I have placed my chips.
It's not really a question of data. Data has indicated it's insignificant risk for most of the world since the beginning, yet we've been herded to stampede, and continue to be too dumb to resist the urge to panic. It's like we're addicted to adrenalin and cortisol. We're being manipulated in an epic scam. The people manipulating us will continue it as long as we allow it.
"Joe" is buying half a billion tests. What do you think that will do to "cases" between now and July? Efficacy is irrelevant. And, of course, they'll pick a new mutation out of the inevitable parade and give it a scary new name -- omega? -- and terrify the weak and stupid all over again. Pharma will produce a new "must have" vax. The addicts need their fix. Where's the line for testing, and the next boost? Save us, "Joe"! Give it to us harder!
The new variant will be called KAMA SUTRA.
It is elementary manipulation, Mr Watson.
Spot on Mr. Watson! Data is a manipulated headline more than ever: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10381669/Five-million-people-call-sick-week-hits-second-highest-daily-case-count.html. Five million catch a cold! Eeek!
Exactly, because with a single Matterhorn of data, the entire Himalayan mountain range of context can now be smoothed.
A bit of a correction if I may:
"The proof for it will be in the <jabbing>. The dashboard data for July predicted the drop in infection efficacy everywhere else. I also relied on it to make my prediction of durable "severe efficacy" in early August - so, it was literally reliable.
Whether the data for the last month is also predictive, we will know eventually. For now, I am comfortable with where I have placed my <vaccs>."
Infections are uninteresting. Seems to be just a metric of how many tests they run, and how much they crank up pcr reps. Sickness is interesting. Any clues how many are sick? How sick are they? Rumors say the currently prevalent strains aren't very virulent. Seems like they'd be touting hospital overflows, and morgues, if that was happening. I'm guessing it's not really much of a problem any more.
We should avoid playing the "cases" game. It's a rigged game.
I started ignoring case numbers long ago.
Most others remain obsessed.
Agree. This has been so badly tracked from the beginning. No surreptitious agenda of course!
Which is why I have never personally taken a test, nor will.
You have never had the pleasure of having your anterior sinuses scraped until you are coughing and eyes welling up? And departed while dabbing the tears from your eyes, aware that it is all meaningless anyway? And waited in non-suspense for at least 48 hours to get the email that exempts you (for the next day or two) from social/employer banishment? I am jealous!
If you want to see brain-lock, tell someone you had an illness and when they ask if you've been tested for COVID, tell them "nope, I have no interest in being tested for COVID". They stare at you like you just started speaking Martian.
I was mask-less at a California Smart & Final the other day, and imagined what I would say if someone asked me to put one on (no one did): "It's ok, I'm unvaccinated."
This whole PCR nose vs. throat testing, if true, throws into doubt all PCR and antigen tests over the past 6 months. And it's going "viral" lol: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/rapid-nose-swab-tests-covid-may-not-detect-omicron-quickly-enough-expert-says-2022-01-07/ The goal posts change from day to day. I am taking my shirt off and walking off the field! BTW love the teen-eggers and meth-heads comparison. It is a perfect analogy of the current absurd situation.
The only thing you need to know to throw into doubt all PCR tests is how PCR works. There's a reason the person who invented PCR said it should never be used as a test for infection.
Fun fact - PCR nasal tests should go in at a 0° horizontal angle to the head. Half of the photographs that get onto news stories nonetheless display the brainpan-scratching 45° maneuver.
Thanks for that link - So Omicron does still seem to "land" in the mouth before it spreads. The higher affinity for nasal cells could still explain why natural immunity is not able to suppress spread before a nasal PCR test catches the encounter. Still might mean that nasal PCR cycle counts have almost nothing to do with transmission; it is always just assumed / asserted as far as I can tell. Funny that the three-day delay is only "just now" a cause for concern...
Well done. The Rapid Antigen test can be positive due to HKU-1 (common cold). So - false positives are driving the numbers, again. https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/a-pediatrician-called-me-and-asked
Thank you. The Israel dashboard does include speed tests in some of the topline results, as well as one of the graphs. If the guide is to be trusted, the bulk of graphs for cases including the "reinfections" should be PCR only (and positives less than 90 days apart excluded). Hopefully...
Thank you for the information - this is news to me. If one could ever keep up with the news. But in the current USSA one cannot get a PCR or antigen test readily so I am interested in seeing future data.
I would speculate it would have more to do with residual antibodies outcompeting Natural Antibodies + lower presence of resident T Cells in nasal airway post natural infection, again channelling vanden Bossche a bit. However, I am reluctant to form positive conclusions from the "unvaccinated" reinfection rates (vs using them to rule out assumptions about +vaccinated reinfections).
As suggested in the post, for example, the "unvaccinated overall" for some age groups could have near-equal absolute counts of previously PCR-positive. So this would remove the "at a glance" problem. I think it is a combination of factors, plus a bit of denominator-inaccuracy, and the per-previously infected +unvaccinated vs +dosed risk ratio is probably in the 1.77 to 2.5 range that shows among the young (an artifact of the recently-dosed having higher antibodies, and of the unvaccinated infected being infected earlier on average).