Omicron - the latest Covid “variant of concern”

[Zinjanthropos]

A voice from the past. Good to hear from you Sche. Hope your horses are doing ok. I leave for BC next Friday to see grandkids & do Xmas with them. Not sure what to do next week before hopping on plane, stay home until last minute or be brave and venture out. I’d like to think Omicron is the COVID virus evolving to a less virulent strain that doesn’t kill the host, for its own benefit. Going to Pearson as early as I can in case get selected for random check. Happened to my wife a month ago and she ended up being last person on plane.

[Syne]

No, science has not shown preventative measures to be, as everywhere has experienced the same rates of COVID sooner or later. At best, they are a delay tactic, that also delays the spread of naturally acquired resistance.

So far, Omicron has been hitting more of the vaccinated.

[Leigha]

From the data so far, it seems that the Omicron variant while highly contagious, is weaker than the Delta variant, but I've also read that it may be weakening vaccine protection.

[Syne]

Like flu vaccines, COVID vaccines are tailored to one specific variant. If a different variant becomes dominant, the vaccine is essentially useless.

Naturally acquired resistance is more generalized and has proven to be more robust, both over time and against multiple variants.

[confused2]

The uk (England) has gone for 'Plan B' rules on working from home and masks.
( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59585307 )
Our problem is not so much actual deaths from covid (now very low) as that the resources (8% of hospital beds) required to prevent them are causing death and distress to people with other diseases.
Around 7% (11,000) of total deaths attributed to covid were from infections acquired while in hospital - in a more litigious country this could be very expensive.
( https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/09/covid-new...-15567515/ )
In addition to being fully vaccinated my own small contribution has been to give up smoking in the hope that this will reduce my chances of taking up (wasting) valuable resources.

[Syne]

In addition to being fully vaccinated my own small contribution has been to give up smoking in the hope that this will reduce my chances of taking up (wasting) valuable resources.

Too late. Research has shown that only quitting smoking by age 35 wipes out your excess risk of lung cancer.
So...smoke 'em if ya got 'em.

[Secular Sanity]

My son moved to Puerto Rico. He bought a house there. A little Act 60 sort of thing. My best friend and I are going to stay with him after the holidays. She refuses to get vaccinated, which means that we can’t even go to a restaurant. They just updated their policies to include a 24-hour test prior to entry, as well. It was 72. Oh, well, I’m not going there to eat. I’m going to spend time with my son and best friend, snorkel, chase waterfalls, and check out the history. I hope this new variant doesn’t mess up my plans.

[Syne]

Only fearmongering is likely to mess up travel plans. It sure won't be the science.

[Leigha]

Heard today that the CDC might change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to two shots plus a booster.

The goal posts keep changing and the Pfizer CEO is discussing a fourth shot (second booster)

Hmm.

[C C]

Heard today that the CDC might change the definition of “fully vaccinated” to two shots plus a booster.

The goal posts keep changing and the Pfizer CEO is discussing a fourth shot (second booster)

Hmm.

With J&J booted out of the whole mutable dynamics...

The tragedy of Johnson & Johnson’s Covid vaccine
https://www.statnews.com/2021/12/17/the-...d-vaccine/

INTRO: Johnson & Johnson’s Covid vaccine was going to be a shot for the world. Now, under the weight of a mountain of bad PR, one wonders if the world will want it.

On Thursday, a panel advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted unanimously that the shots developed by Pfizer and Moderna should be recommended over the J&J one. That won’t matter much to J&J as a business — in the third quarter the vaccine generated only $500 million of the company’s $23 billion in revenue.

But the recommendation is confusing news for the public, a slight to one of the world’s largest drug companies, and a disappointing setback for researchers, both inside and outside J&J, who hoped that the shot and the technology behind it would make a huge difference in the fight against a raging global pandemic. Decisions that J&J made seemingly in the service of public health, not commerce, may have hurt the vaccine’s chances, and in the end, the company was bested by one of the central facts of drug development: Biology is unfair, and, besides, you can’t be smart enough to beat bad luck.

The J&J Covid vaccine for a moment seemed like a crowning achievement for Paul Stoffels, J&J’s chief scientific officer and vice chairman, known for his career developing HIV and tuberculosis drugs as well as an Ebola vaccine. Whereas J&J’s reputation is anything but pristine — the company played a role in the opioid epidemic, and has faced lawsuits around antipsychotic drugs and even its famous talcum powder — Stoffels, a world-renowned scientist, stood out as bearish and warm. On the Covid vaccine, he was working with Harvard’s Dan Barouch, who was also working with J&J on an HIV vaccine.

Last January, Stoffels described to me the moment he knew that the vaccine might have legs. Johan Van Hoof, an executive in J&J’s vaccine business, sent him a photo of primate data on the vaccine candidate. The scientists were extremely happy but remained subdued — they joked it was because they are both Flemish. But Stoffels saved the photo on his phone.

Those kinds of moments took on a different color, though, as the one-dose form of the J&J vaccine turned out to have only 66% efficacy at preventing symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with the vaccines developed by Moderna and the team of Pfizer and BioNTech, which showed efficacy in the range of 95%. Both of those competing vaccines use a technology called mRNA to prompt the body to make a protein from the virus that the immune system then learns to recognize; J&J’s vaccine instead uses a modified version of a virus, called adenovirus.

Any pharma marketer will tell you: Even a slight difference in efficacy numbers can sway patients and doctors... (MORE - details)