Prior infection may not protect against Omicron COVID variant: S. Africa microbiologist
undefined undefined/iStock via Getty Images
- While the Delta variant of COVID-19 provided a layer of protection against the risk of reinfection, that doesn't appear to be the case with the Omicron variant, according to a leading South African microbiologist.
- Anne von Gottberg of South Africa's National Institute for Communicable Disease said that the country is seeing an upswing in reinfections in patients presenting with the Omicron variant.
- However, she said during a WHO Africa news briefing today that the reinfections may be less severe than the original infection.
- More than 8K new cases were detected yesterday in the country and that number is expected to rise to 10K daily.
- Separately, two additional Omicron cases were identified in the U.S. today: One in Minnesota and the other in Colorado. The Minnesota case involved a man who had symptoms just after returning from an anime convention in New York City. He was fully vaccinated and received a booster shot.
- Vaccine makers were down on the day: Moderna (MRNA -2.9%), Pfizer (PFE -3.0%), BioNTech (BNTX -0.3%), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ -0.6%) and Novavax (NVAX -15.9%).
- Dear Readers: We recognize that politics often intersects with the financial news of the day, so we invite you to click here to join the separate political discussion.
Recommended For You
Comments (244)
@mikey6pack you are right on all levels and I will add the fact that hospitals are financially incentivized to report Covid infections treated and Covid as the cause of death since they receive direct reimbursement from the federal government for doing so. It's always "follow the money". Always.
"Prior infection may not protect against Omicron" is the headline. 1. "May" and "May not" are very similar. 2. "Protect" meaning what? Neither the vax nor prior infection protects you from getting it, but both protect you from being hospitalized.
@AwokenTheLBC Death rate remains low amongst everyone.
IFR is what, sub 1%.
Official case count woefully undercounts actual number of infections so a CFR 2.1% is over egging the actual mortality rate.
And of course it is aged skewed too so for most, anyone under 50-55 the Recovery Rate is 99.5%+
IFR is what, sub 1%.
Official case count woefully undercounts actual number of infections so a CFR 2.1% is over egging the actual mortality rate.
And of course it is aged skewed too so for most, anyone under 50-55 the Recovery Rate is 99.5%+
@darturtle "Vaccines help training our immune system to better respond to bacteria and virus and mutated cells (cancer)"Think you'll find the second doses of this covid vaccine actually destroy the bodies innate immune system if the blood work of an individual is anything to go by. Those B and T cells tanked.Dr. Nathan Thompson - My Jaw DROPPED when I Tested Someone's Immune System After the 2nd Jab
odysee.com/...Note the impact immediately post second dose. The first dose does indeed boost the immune response.Also it seems that some "batches" are more toxic than others.Some batches of Pfizer are worse than others.
Apparently, anything with batch numbers ending in 20A or 21A are in particular, really bad.www.bitchute.com/...
odysee.com/...Note the impact immediately post second dose. The first dose does indeed boost the immune response.Also it seems that some "batches" are more toxic than others.Some batches of Pfizer are worse than others.
Apparently, anything with batch numbers ending in 20A or 21A are in particular, really bad.www.bitchute.com/...
@darturtle A lot of things are going on there, some of which we understand and probably many we don't know about. One important thing is ACE2 receptors in the upper airway. ACE2 is an enzyme that cranks out a hormone that dilates blood vessels, which lowers resistance to blood flow and increases cardiac output. This is something that is needed a lot more in big people (obese people, and even tall people) old people with stiff blood vessels, but not so much in thin, little and young people. Children may have zero ACE2 receptors in the upper airway. So if there are not many or there are no ACE2 receptors, then that person is resistant to infection. Delta found a way around that, partially. We don't know yet, but I would bet Omicron has made an advance here as well. Ultimately, I believe the virus will mutate so that it doesn't bind to the ACE2 receptor at all, but to another receptor like it's cousin, OC-43 does which causes particularly bad colds in children. The virus is recombinant, and if it were to infect someone also infected with OC-43, it could acquire RNA from OC-43. There are other factors, such as a gene called OAS-1. OAS-1 in response to stimulation by alpha interferons stimulates the production of ribonuclease, an enzyme that breaks down double stranded RNA, the genetic material of the virus. If your ancestors had the allele for OAS-1 that is best for Covid, that would have made them more susceptible to the effects of another RNA virus that causes tick borne encephalitis, so in migrations out of Africa thousands of years ago, there was selection for a version of the gene that is somewhat defective, and many people have that version, so they are more susceptible to Covid, Hepatitis C, and other RNA viruses. Then there are genes for pulmonary inflammation, that lead to scarring of the lungs that fairly common and if you have that particular gene, you are more likely to die from or be severely disabled by Covid. So, it's genetic crap shoot. You don't know what collection of genes you have, how many ACE2 receptors you have, etc., and so it's best not to gamble when it comes to Covid.
This is the first pandemic in history where the limiting factor in saving lives isn't medical technology but people's willingness to listen to science.
Amazing how people here have been writing off this pandemic - until it happens to them or someone they know.
@dynx Public policy should be based on good science as its really the one source which isn't politically biased. There is MORE than enough peer-reviewed data/research that it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a policy on a global/national/local level.
"may not protect" = you can still get infected"reinfections may be less severe" = if you're infected it won't be as bad the second timeSee the difference? Not very hard.
This statement doesn't make sense, given that SarsCov1 completely protects against SarsCov2. It's only the spike protein and the furin cleavage site that is different between variants, right? One would expect the nucleocapsid, envelope, and DNA to be almost identical to the other variants, producing very good protection against reinfection.
I honestly don't think any information from S Africa is worth considering. Should just wait on developed nations to complete their research. A country where 20% of the population has AIDS is probably not useful when trying to determine the impact of a covid variant elsewhere.
