The media’s, pharmaceutical companies’ and certain politicians official reasons for supporting Covid vaccine mandates are falling apart. Through misleading use of statistics, erroneous use of scientific evidence, inappropriate attempts to appeal to emotions involving children, and assault of basic liberties and livelihoods, Government response to Covid has been grossly out of proportion to the seriousness of Covid. In this thread, I will occasionally post articles and break them down statement by statement, using mainly my reasoning abilities. First up is an article by an author I have been following for years, who I respect for her knowledge, and my perception of her meaning well. She has a Ph.D. in microbiology, has substantial interest in related fields, and generally writes quite well. It is ironic on several levels that me, a truck driver who only has a few general community college courses under his belt is challenging this author’s article. In fact, there is another article of hers that is very challengeable, in my opinion. I may discuss this article in a future post. I welcome thoughtful, well reasoned challenges to this post. Including gwb-trading’s! If you dare! <Grin> My Comments are inline in italicized blue: No, your antibodies are not better than vaccination: An explainer Infection does offer some immune protection—but it's unreliable compared with vaccines. I will be going to war versus the above statements, using information from this article as well as basic reasoning. BETH MOLE - 10/8/2021, 5:15 AM As long as there have been vaccines against COVID-19, there have been arguments for why people shouldn't get those vaccines. One of the more persistent—and hairier—arguments is that people who have already been infected with the pandemic coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, don't need a vaccine. An infection will generate immune responses similar to those generated by vaccines, the thinking goes. So, why waste coveted vaccine doses on people who already have immune responses against the virus—which may also needlessly put those people at risk of vaccine side effects, however rare? It's a reasonable question, and there is legitimate scientific debate about it. There are also different approaches to the issue in terms of public health policy. In Israel, for example, people who have recovered from COVID-19 after testing positive on a PCR test can get a vaccination "Green Pass" that's valid for up to six months. The pass allows them entry into various places just as it does for people who are fully vaccinated. In the European Union, some member states offer a similar "Digital COVID Certificate" to people who have recovered from COVID-19 and received just one dose of a two-dose mRNA vaccine regimen. In the US, however, public health officials are unequivocal in their approach: people are categorized as either vaccinated or unvaccinated, regardless of prior infection. It's an approach with many strengths, including robust scientific data supporting vaccination for people who have recovered. That data—which we'll get into below—has consistently shown that immune responses from natural infections are extremely variable, thus unreliable. Vaccines, on the other hand, have repeatedly been proven to generate highly protective immune responses. The vaccines are also remarkably safe, with few serious side effects that occur extremely rarely. One of the most concerning side effects is myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle). But even there, the rate of myocarditis in the most at-risk group (males ages 12 to 29) is only estimated to be 41 in a million, and the cases are generally mild. Remember, the statistics of vaccine myocarditis and other adverse reactions are based on what is reported. People have different pain tolerances and many, perhaps the majority, do not report their potentially medically significant adverse vaccine reactions. Speaking of what is reported and what is not, potentially resulting in misleading interpretations of reality through deficient statistical methodologies, how about considering the fact that many Covid infections go unreported?(1) If there are a large number of Covid infections that go unreported, would not the seriousness of Covid be overstated? In fact, the overstatement of Covid seriousness has led to a serious error regarding mandatory vaccinations. (1) Anecdotally, in late December of 2019, before Covid officially arrived in the US, my girlfriend and I had covid-like symptoms that were too minor to warrant seeking the advice of a healthcare professional. Comparing that with actual COVID-19 infections—which can cause severe disease even in young, healthy people and may cause persistent, months-long symptoms in up to half of people infected—there's no contest. I will post the above statement again and break it down almost word or word as an example of manipulation of statistics into an attempt to instill a sense of need for action for the intended audience, the use of weasel words, and the invalid conclusion: Comparing that with actual COVID-19 infections—which can cause severe disease even in young, healthy people Yes, Covid can cause severe disease in young people who appear healthy. These children may have a genetic vulnerability to Coronavirus or a specific strain of Covid-19. There are probably always going to be such people versus any infectious disease. Further, the author does not mention specific numbers, including infection rates among the author’s still general age group. In actuality, the number of serious Covid outcomes in the young are too low to base policy decision on, especially policies that mandate our children take vaccines. and may cause persistent, months-long symptoms in up to half of people infected— Key weasel words in above statement, “In up to half”. Instead of using misleading statistics, the author has gone one step further and is misusing even those statistics by taking them out of context. Hopefully readers of this post are smart enough to be aware that “In up to half” is also inclusive of the statement that “Almost nobody…”. The fact is almost no healthy children, when measured in rates per 100,000, have almost no long term health effects to a Covid-19 infection. … of “People” infected. Here the author is deceptively moving the goalpost in mid-sentence from “Children” to “People”. This deception is still a lie as it meets the definition of a lie, e.g., “The intent to deceive”. I will leave it to the reader if they can reasonably ascertain the author’s “Intent”. Does any of the preceding author’s statements sound like they are based upon the oft quoted “Scientific method” to you? there's no contest. Silly conclusion based on fallacious, actually worse than fallacious, arguments. Vaccines are safer. And they're just as safe for people who have previously recovered. People with past COVID-19 cases are no more likely to have serious side effects from vaccines than people who haven't been previously infected, though they may have more side effects. The US approach also has logistical benefits. Simple categories of "vaccinated" and "unvaccinated" skip over the messy and difficult step of figuring out who has been infected and when. From the early stages of the pandemic, the US has struggled—and is still struggling—to roll out accurate, widely available tests for SARS-CoV-2. Many people who have been infected never officially tested positive. Others assumed they were infected when they may have actually had one of many other respiratory infections. And antibody tests that look for evidence of past infections are notoriously inaccurate. Though opponents argue that mass vaccination is driven by "evil corporations" out for prodigious profits at all costs, the fact is that vaccines are extremely safe and offer recovered people strong, lasting protection against a virus that has already killed more than 700,000 Americans. Efficacy and variability That's not to say that there aren't weaknesses to the US's approach. For one thing, the approach can make vaccines look bad. In many instances, vaccine effectiveness is gauged by comparing COVID-19 case rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated people. But in the US, the unvaccinated include people who have no immunity and recovered people, who have some immunity and are, thus, expected to have fewer infections. This waters down case rates in the unvaccinated group and ends up lowering the vaccine efficacy estimates. Still, the vaccines' efficacy estimates are extraordinarily good. A recent study found that the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine was holding steady with 90 percent efficacy against COVID-19 hospitalization for at least six months. A separate study found that the Moderna mRNA vaccine was 93 percent effectiveagainst hospitalizations among people without immunocompromising conditions. Johnson & Johnson's vaccine was 71 percent effective. And again, many vaccine efficacy numbers don't account for past infection and may be artificially lower because of that. How much lower? It's unclear. Since the beginning of the pandemic, researchers have noted time and again that immune responses generated by SARS-CoV-2 infections vary wildly, with some of the weaker responses seen in people with mild disease and stronger responses in people with severe disease. In one study Ars reported on back in June of last year, researchers looking at SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in people who had recovered found that the difference between the highest and lowest levels varied by a factor of over 1,000. The researchers saw even more variability when they looked at neutralizing antibodies—those known to bind to the virus and prevent it from infecting cells. Neutralizing antibody levels in recovered people varied over a range of 40,000-fold, and up to 20 percent of people didn't have any detectable level of neutralizing antibody. Antibodies levels do not tell the whole story of one’s protection against a particular virus strain as a previously infected individual’s body will “Remember” that strain and quickly produce antibodies once that virus is detected again. It is not so much our body “Forgets” how to fight a previous virus strain, rather it is a new strain of a viruses that causes a new infection. The term “Reinfection” is mostly a dangerous misnomer, in my opinion. Antibodies Of course, antibodies are not the entirety of the immune responses that determine if a person will get infected or not and, if they do, how severe their infection will become. However, antibodies can provide a reasonable gauge of how well someone is protected. A study late last year that tracked 12,500 health care workers found that the higher the antibody levels, the lower the risk of infection. And in May of this year, researchers found "a remarkably strong" relationship between neutralizing antibody levels and vaccine protection. A fundamental difference between the immune responses generated by vaccines and natural infection is their specificity. In a natural infection, whole SARS-CoV-2 viruses infect cells in the respiratory tract. Responding immune cells can target any number of facets of those whole viruses. This creates a relatively large diversity of antibodies that bind to different bits of SARS-CoV-2. The vaccines, meanwhile, only offer to the immune system key snippets of SARS-CoV-2—namely the virus's spike protein. This is the protein that SARS-CoV-2 uses to enter human cells, and it's a key target of neutralizing antibodies. All antibodies in vaccinated people will target the spike protein. Though vaccinated people have less antibody diversity than previously infected people, they have high levels of highly targeted antibodies. Think of it as the difference between hunting a tiny virus with a shotgun and a sniper rifle. With variable immune responses after infection comes variable real-world data on how well past infection protects against reinfection, which has led to the different public policy approaches. In a study conducted at Cleveland Clinic and posted online in June, researchers found that among 52,238 employees, there were no differences in COVID-19 case rates between employees who were unvaccinated but previously infected, vaccinated and previously infected, and vaccinated people with no previous infection. "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination," the authors concluded. Yet, in another study published in August by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, researchers looked at the vaccination status of more than 200 Kentucky residents who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in 2020 and then tested positive again during May and June 2021. The CDC researchers found that people previously infected but unvaccinated were 2.34 times more likely to get reinfected than people who were previously infected and fully vaccinated. The author has neglected to mention why natural immunity antibody diversity has potentially significantly greater benefits in providing protection against future mainstream Covid variants of concern. Upon the millions of virions in a typical infection, there are likely other strains of that virus represented, some of which could eventually become the next “Variant” of concern. As such, natural immunity has inherently greater long term protection than vaccines with their high Covid Alpha Variant(Or whatever earlier variant the current crop of vaccines are based on) “Specificity”. Further, when one realizes vaccine specificity fundamentally should not provide enhanced protection, or even any protection, against new strains that have a different protein coat to gain entrance to cells, which happens to be a natural evolutionary pressure, hence giving rise to the different stain in the first place. Yes, there is the argument that Covid unvaccinated are “Variant factories”, but all of us were unvaccinated for at least a year after Covid-19 came on the scene, allowing unfettered Covid evolution. In addition, Covid variants of concern are being generated at least every six months, rendering vaccines, or even early natural immunity, wanting. Bad news for sure, but it is what it is. The preceding is reality based on solid understanding and reasoning of the more substantial parts of current Covid knowledge. Or… Change my mind! Delta difference The timeframe for the CDC study coincides with the rise of the delta coronavirus variant in the US, which may also play a role in protection levels from past infection. In a French study published in July in Nature, researchers examined antibodies in 56 unvaccinated people who had recovered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to the rise of delta. Six months after their infection and amid the rise of delta, the researchers found that their neutralizing antibody levels were 4 to 6 times lower against delta than they were against earlier variants. The researchers next looked at a different group of 47 people who had gone a year since a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of those 47, 26 were still unvaccinated and 21 had received one dose of a vaccine. At that point, the unvaccinated 26 had extremely low levels of neutralizing antibodies against any SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly delta. Many people had no detectable levels of neutralizing antibody against delta. The vaccinated group, meanwhile, had high levels of neutralizing antibody similar to or above the levels seen in people who were fully vaccinated. That finding has played out in several studies. A March study from researchers in Washington state, for instance, found that one dose of an mRNA vaccine in people who had recovered boosted levels of neutralizing antibody against all SARS-CoV-2 variants up to a thousandfold. And several other studies have found that vaccine doses after infection cause sky-high spikes in antibody levels. Some data has also suggested that antibody levels in the vaccinated recovered are even higher than people who have only been vaccinated. Overall, the variable immune responses to infection, lower neutralization against delta, and the clear boost in protection from a very safe, highly effective vaccine make a strong argument for vaccinating the recovered. Small study sizes listed above are statistically insignificant and our Government cannot reasonably justify making policy decisions on them. As it is, it is not unusual for multiple large studies to conflict with one another, especially if each study receives similar reviews and media coverage. This issue behind multiple, large scale studies differing in conclusions often involves the utilization of different methodologies or subtle differences in controls. The cynical may think some studies are “Curve fits” of earlier studies as an attempt by a pharmaceutical company to gain regulatory approval to sell a product. The bottom line is Covid is not serious enough to mandate vaccines on a wide scale. As such, government mandates are a massive overreach of political power that may have permanent adverse long term heath and civil rights implications. BETH MOLEBeth is Ars Technica’s health reporter. She’s interested in biomedical research, infectious disease, health policy and law, and has a Ph.D. in microbiology. EMAIL beth.mole@arstechnica.com // TWITTER @BethMarieMole I have made minor formatting changes to this article, including removing advertisements.
Weak counter argument. Admit it, you did not even read the post, did you? The time stamp difference between our posts is three minutes. In those three minutes, you somehow found this new thread, read, considered, and reached your conclusion? Alex, I’ll take “Internet Trolls” for $200, please.
I read your post.... your "reasoning" is so full of Covid conspiracy nonsense that the only possible reply is to laugh as this shiat. Ignoring that you are pushing misinformation which is killing tens of thousands of people. Have you no shame?
My reasoning and the factual basis for it has yet to be successfully contested. There are no vaccines for the Delta variant of Covid, as far as I’m aware. Variant specific vaccines are kind of important, if I am understanding how vaccines and the immune system work correctly. However, even if a delta specific vaccine were available, so what? It would be rendered obsolete pretty quickly through other variants of concern, some already named. This is all academic since the current crop of vaccines were on their way to becoming obsolete before they were made available publicly. As far as the current Covid-19 vaccine based on an earlier, now obsolete strain, efficacy numbers are optimistic at best, based on controlled conditions in clinical trials, mostly a year or so ago, during the two week window of peak efficacy, and should be declining as Covid-19 variants continue to evolve. However, if I am wrong and the current crop of vaccines are still highly effective, will always maintain their high rate of effectiveness against future Covid strains, then why do you need me to take it? After all, your argument is the vaccinated are well protected, right? The key point is immunity against a particular strain of a virus does not quickly wane. However, with Covid-19 variants, they quickly mutate into distinctly genetically different variants as to make infection possible to those exposed to that variant. Perceptive readers may appreciate the futility of recommending a booster containing a vaccine rendered obsolete or nearly obsolete by a new Covid-19 strain. There is a group of people I consider vaccine over-confident who do not wear masks, practice social distancing, or take other protective measures against the spread of Covid. However, even these people I would not blame spreading Covid because for the vast majority of people, especially considering that many people who got Covid did not bother to report their case because their symptoms were too minor to bother taking action. Further, no one is better, or at least should be better qualified to take protective measures against Covid than those at-risk. After all, the risks for them are statistically higher and they know it. One of the biggest things that disturb me about the propaganda surrounding Covid vaccines is the use of misleading statistics or failure to disclose relevant statistics and instead attempting to make an emotional appeal to take a vaccine because a few kids died. Vaccines are harmful to a degree and some people experience particularly adverse reactions. A good number of otherwise low risk individuals will suffer adverse effects from vaccines who would not otherwise experience serious complications from a Covid-19 infection. Assuming they even get infected at all. If an idea is so sound, it should be able to stand on its own, no manipulation required. Vaccine mandates are unsupportable on possibly any level except perhaps very specific situations involving healthcare workers. Even then, current, real world vaccine effectiveness should be strongly considered. The high rate of Nosocomial infections are another indicator there some sort of inefficiency with our healthcare system and or vaccines in dealing with Covid-19. More on this later as more is learned.
Since the Democrats in power feel justified in imposing vaccine mandates on everybody, or at least effectively forcing mandates on most people through the denial of employment and other rights, should there not be other authoritarian mandates concerning any action a person could take that might compromise the effectiveness of a vaccine, or perhaps more accurately at this point, whatever remaining effectiveness of Covid-19 vaccines than might remain? At some point, alcohol and drug abuse are tantamount to “Undoing” the effectiveness of a vaccine, right? As such and logically speaking, should there not be mandates against the consumption of alcohol and drugs? I say mandates because creating an accurate, allowable dosing chart by age groups would be difficult and hard to enforce. Since diabetes and being overweight are significant comorbidities for breakthrough Covid infections, should there not also be mandates against food items that are implicated in weight gain an diabetes? How about mandatory exercise regimens? Mandatory levels of dental care in order to reduce inflammatory markers? After all, the more serious the Covid infection, the more variants are potentially produced as well as increased period the patient is infectious. Should healthcare professional reprioritize the aforementioned slackers who “Obviously” don’t care about their health, and by extension, the health of those around them? What do we do with the elderly given their age-weakened immune systems, resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness? Are we justified in mandating them to isolation for the greater good? Covid is here to stay no matter how many vaccinations we take or how many mandates we have. It will be just like we see with the common cold and influenza. There have been 219 million cases of Covid-19 worldwide plus an early estimate that 2/3rds of Covid cases go undiagnosed. Later estimates suggest less Covid cases go undiagnosed, with a google search on recent estimates coming up empty. Two-thirds of Covid-19 cases may be undiagnosed: modelling estimate based on real-world data By GlobalData Healthcare20 Apr 2020 (Last Updated April 20th, 2020 14:32) The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has now spread across 187 countries with approximately two million confirmed cases worldwide. The US is the most heavily affected country in the world, representing 25% of confirmed cases worldwide. Based on modelling assumptions using available data to date, GlobalData estimates that 50–80% of the Covid-19 cases are mild and asymptomatic and thus not likely to be diagnosed. It is paramount that undiagnosed cases of Covid-19 are mapped quickly to accurately predict the number of asymptomatic contagious cases. Having an accurate estimate of the infected numbers will also be important in helping governments plan for the re-opening of society. The true number of untested/undiagnosed cases is creating a lot of debate as well as confusion. The limited data from China in the early period of the outbreak showed that more than 80% of cases could be asymptomatic and not likely to be diagnosed. This suggests that there could be eight million cases worldwide that have not been diagnosed. The World Health Organization (WHO) had also corroborated during the early period of the outbreak that 80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, while 15% are severe and 5% is critical. These assumptions were made with very thin data, including only initial outbreak data from Hubei province in China and early outbreak data in Italy. The newest data from Austria, Iceland, and New York show variations in undiagnosed estimates of Covid-19. In Austria, a random sampling survey reported that 0.33% of Austrians had active Covid-19, which suggested that 50% of cases are undiagnosed. Iceland has a policy of widespread testing that did not limit testing to those with symptoms. Data from Iceland reported that 50% of cases were asymptomatic carriers. Data from a study in New York of all women giving birth at a hospital showed 88% of the pregnant women who tested positive for the novel coronavirus were asymptomatic carriers. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report that 25% of cases were asymptomatic suggests that the proportion of novel coronavirus asymptomatic carriers is in the 25–88% range. GlobalData epidemiologists forecast the total number of cases (diagnosed and undiagnosed) in Austria, Iceland, China, and New York using these real-world data. Cumulative confirmed cases on 15 April were used as a baseline in this model, shown in Figure 1. New York had 640,000 cases of Covid-19 and two-thirds of those cases are undiagnosed. Approximately 250,000 cases in China are still undiagnosed, whereas undiagnosed cases represent 50% of total cases in Austria and Iceland. Finally, if we extrapolate the total infection rate (undiagnosed and diagnosed) from these countries to the rest of the world, no country is close to herd immunity, where at least 60% of the population is exposed to the virus and can build up a combined immunity. This means countries need to be vigilant of second and third waves of infection, or even seasonal outbreaks that could arise out of both uncontained local pockets and new introductions from travellers once lock-down measures are relaxed. It may be prudent to implement slow release of lock-down measures so governments can better monitor and address potential secondary outbreaks. https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/comment/covid-19-undiagnosed-cases/
Notice the title of the thread - “Possible Election fraud in Progress”. There are still ongoing debates on the extent of election irregularities that include Biden receiving more votes than registered voters in certain precincts. Whether these irregularities would have resulted in an different election outcome is still being debated. Also, I have been not been participating in that thread for an extended period for the most part as there have been no decisive developments in a long time. Still not not seeing a counter-argument to my assertions on the Covid here. Please try again.
Here is a link to the above article: https://arstechnica.com/science/202...tion-why-everyone-should-get-a-covid-19-shot/
I am going to expand the number of Covid-19 topics in this thread to include actual science from official sources for educational purposes and as a foundation for debunking media propaganda. The attempted manipulation of public opinion through misleading use of statistics, censorship, policy strong arm tactics, ad hominem attacks, and emotional appeals for a virus of only moderate impact suggests a hidden agenda by a powerful political faction. This hidden agenda may be as simple a reward for their pharmaceutical company campaign donors, like Obamacare, aka the forced purchase of a product, such as vaccines or healthcare insurance. The use of regulations to require the purchase of goods and services is nothing new and neither are the methods used to manufacture public consent. Examples for common forced purchase in the home are smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, GFCI outlets in and even outside of bathrooms, to name a few top of mind. In vehicles, there are seatbelts, carseats, and frontal airbags. Many of these safety related products have tangible benefits. However, at some point a threshold is passed between what is reasonable and what is not. For example, side airbags, electric windows, electric door locks, and vehicle radar adds significant cost and complexity to vehicles without significantly improving safety. The same concept applies for mandatory vaccinations of people at low risk of Covid-19 complications, of which, there are a lot of people who fall into that category. As may be derived from the article below, Covid-19 vaccines may become increasingly futile in efforts at avoiding Covid infections. Fair warning: Disturbing content below for those who had the idea of politicizing a virus as a power grab. For those mentioned, who also happen to be intrepid soles, decide to forge ahead and read the content below, tell us, are you feeling regrets? The following article is from CDC.gov. This article discusses Covid variants and their lineages. In other words, major Covid-19 variants have been generating their own variants. This information seems to suggest vaccine effectiveness will become increasingly weaker no matter how many jabs one gets and the difficulty, if not futility, in choosing which Covid lineage to choose for the next round of vaccine development. Further, the value of natural immunity increases as well as using PPE and social distancing for those wish to reduce their chance of becoming infected with a future Covid-19 variant, vaccinated and unvaccinated alike. My comments are posted inline below in blue. From cdc.gov: To maximize protection from the Delta variant and prevent possibly spreading it to others, get vaccinated as soon as you can and wear a mask indoors in public if you are in an area of substantial or high transmission. SARS-CoV-2 Variant Classifications and Definitions Key Points email_03Get Variants Classification and Definition Updates Genetic lineages of SARS-CoV-2 have been emerging and circulating around the world since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 genetic lineages in the United States are routinely monitored through epidemiological investigations, virus genetic sequence-based surveillance, and laboratory studies. The US government SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group (SIG) added a new class of SARS-CoV-2 variants designated as Variants Being Monitored. This class includes variants with substitutions of concern, including previously designated Variants of Interest (VOIs) or Variants of Concern (VOCs), that are no longer detected or are circulating at very low levels in the United States, and as such, do not pose a significant or imminent risk to public health in the United States. The SIG Variant classification scheme defines four classes of SARS-CoV-2 variants: Variant Being Monitored (VBM) Alpha (B.1.1.7 and Q lineages) Beta (B.1.351 and descendent lineages) Gamma (P.1 and descendent lineages) Epsilon (B.1.427 and B.1.429) Eta (B.1.525) Iota (B.1.526) Kappa (B.1.617.1) 1.617.3 Mu (B.1.621, B.1.621.1) Zeta (P.2) Variant of Interest (VOI) Variant of Concern (VOC) Delta (B.1.617.2 and AY lineages) Variant of High Consequence (VOHC) To date, no variants of high consequence have been identified in the United States. Good to know Due to the increasing number of sublineages that are associated with Alpha, Delta, and Gamma, unless otherwise specified, CDC will refer to the sublineages collectively as Q lineages (Alpha), AY lineages (Delta) and P.1 descendent lineages (Gamma). So we have Q, AY, and P.1 lineages, with more to presumably follow the other known Covid variants. Anybody up for a game of Whack-A-Mole? Vaccines approved and authorized for use in the United States are effective against these variants and effective therapeutics are available. CDC continues to monitor all variants circulating within the United States. CDC will no longer provide unweighted proportions of substitutions of concern for SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapies. Clinicians seeking advice on the use of monoclonal antibody products authorized for emergency use in the United States for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 should consult the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelinesexternal icon and the FDA Fact Sheets for Health Care Providers for the three anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatments with FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the treatment of COVID-19: bamlanivimab plus etesevimabexternal icon, casirivimab plus imdevimabexternal icon, and sotrovimabexternal icon. Viruses like SARS-CoV-2 continuously evolve as changes in the genetic code (genetic mutations) occur during replication of the genome. A lineage is a genetically closely related group of virus variants derived from a common ancestor. A variant has one or more mutations that differentiate it from other variants of the SARS-CoV-2 viruses. As expected, multiple variants of SARS-CoV-2 have been documented in the United States and globally throughout this pandemic. To inform local outbreak investigations and understand national trends, scientists compare genetic differences between viruses to identify variants and how they are related to each other. Key Definitions Variant of Concern or a Variant of Interest due to shared attributes and characteristics that may require public health action. Mutation: A mutation refers to a single change in a virus’s genome (genetic code). Mutations happen very frequently, but only sometimes change the characteristics of the virus. Lineage: A lineage is a group of closely related viruses with a common ancestor. SARS-CoV-2 has many lineages; all cause COVID-19. Variant: A variant is a viral genome (genetic code) that may contain one or more mutations. In some cases, a group of variants with similar genetic changes, such as a lineage or group of lineages, may be designated by public health organizations as a Variant of Concern or a Variant of Interest due to shared attributes and characteristics that may require public health action. How Variants Are Classified The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) established a SARS-CoV-2 Interagency Group (SIG) to improve coordination among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and Department of Defense (DoD). This interagency group is focused on the rapid characterization of emerging variants and actively monitors their potential impact on critical SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures, including vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. I’ve underlined the key point above for emphasis, I quote part of that point: …emerging variants and actively monitors their potential impact on critical SARS-CoV-2 countermeasures, including vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. Seems to me, the future of the current crop of vaccines is bleak indeed. Yet our government is mandating their use for all and recommending booster shots to some groups. One of the changes seen in some Covid-19 variants is changes in their infecting spike protein, reducing the efficacy or perhaps more likely, rendering vaccines based on earlier strains useless for future Covid variants. The SIG meets regularly to evaluate the risk posed by SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating in the United States and to make recommendations about the classification of variants. This evaluation is undertaken by a group of subject matter experts who assess available data, including variant proportions at the national and regional levels and the potential or known impact of the constellation of mutations on the effectiveness of medical countermeasures, severity of disease, and ability to spread from person to person. Given the continuous evolution of SARS-CoV-2 and our understanding of the impact of variants on public health, variants may be reclassified based on their attributes and prevalence in the United States. Variants Being Monitored (VBM)– View current VBM in the United States that continue to be monitored and characterized by federal agencies Variant of Interest (VOI)– Currently, there are no SARS-CoV-2 variants that are designated as Variants of Interest Variant of Concern (VOC)– View current VOC in the United States that are being closely monitored and characterized by federal agencies Variant of High Consequence (VOHC)– Currently there are no SARS-CoV-2 variants that rise to the level of high consequence Notes: Each variant classification includes the possible attributes of lower classes (e.g., VOC includes the possible attributes of VOI); variant status might escalate or deescalate based on emerging scientific evidence. This page will be updated as needed to show the variants that belong to each class. The World Health Organization (WHO)external icon also classifies variant viruses as Variants of Concern and Variants of Interest; US classifications may differ from those of WHO because the impact of variants may differ by location. To assist with public discussions of variants, WHO proposed using labels consisting of the Greek Alphabet, e.g., Alpha, Beta, Gamma, as a practical way to discuss variants by non-scientific audiences. The labels assigned to each variant are provided in the tables below. Spike Protein Substitutions: T19R, (V70F*), T95I, G142D, E156-, F157-, R158G, (A222V*), (W258L*), (K417N*), L452R, T478K, D614G, P681R, D950N Nextstrain clade (Nextstrainexternal icon)b: 21A/S:478K First Identified: India Attributes: Increased transmissibility29 Potential reduction in neutralization by some EUA monoclonal antibody treatments7, 14 Potential reduction in neutralization by post-vaccination sera21 Variant of High Consequence (VOHC) A variant of high consequence has clear evidence that prevention measures or medical countermeasures (MCMs) have significantly reduced effectiveness relative to previously circulating variants. Possible attributes of a variant of high consequence: In addition to the possible attributes of a variant of concern Impact on Medical Countermeasures (MCM) Demonstrated failure of diagnostic test targets Evidence to suggest a significant reduction in vaccine effectiveness, a disproportionately high number of infections in vaccinated persons, or very low vaccine-induced protection against severe disease Significantly reduced susceptibility to multiple Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or approved therapeutics More severe clinical disease and increased hospitalizations A variant of high consequence would require notification to WHO under the International Health Regulations, reporting to CDC, an announcement of strategies to prevent or contain transmission, and recommendations to update treatments and vaccines. Currently, there are no SARS-CoV-2 variants that rise to the level of high consequence. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant-info.html Note: I had considerable difficulty formatting the above article and it appears some of the article may have been left out. Therefore, I recommend those interested in the article to click the link above.