Note: 100% a gut feeling
> In a series of interviews with Israeli TV channels, Albert Bourla said it would “not be a good scenario” if people were to get boosters every four to five months. “What I'm hoping [is] that we will have a vaccine that you will have to do once a year,” ... Bourla argued that it is both easier to sell the idea and “easier for people to remember” if a vaccine is required only once per year, calling it “an ideal situation” from “a public health perspective.”
It's called original antigenic sin[0]. It's one of the reasons that mass vaccination against a variant that is no longer circulating may not be the wisest strategy. But anyone who dares mention it is shouted down as anti-vaxx.
Probably not very likely, but to say Covid-19 is somehow outside the scope of original antigenic sin theory is silly.
>I guess that’s a theoretical possibility for a different virus
Im not trying to claim it applied to omicron, current vaccine efficacy, that we should halt vaccinations, or any other strawman you are trying to put up.
You can simply acknowledge the correction
Original antigenic sin. However I don't think it predicts that the alpha-based boosters we have will be any more effective, and I don't think that we are observing particularly impressive effectiveness either.
https://youtu.be/L2GKPYzL_JQ - "How many more adverse effects have been covered up during the trials? - Maddie de Garay's story."
It's promising that there will be slightly higher regulatory standards for the Omicron vaccine: clinical trial in humans must be completed before approval and clinical trial data must be submitted at the same time, i.e. no 75-year delays.
> the debate appears to have shifted with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) saying on Friday that international regulators now preferred clinical studies to be carried out before approval of a new vaccine ... Inclusion of clinical trial data in the regulatory filings may have an impact on the delivery of initial batches.
A major British medical journal just demanded that the raw trial data be released - but will it even be untampered with - like the Maddie De Garay situation insinuates happens widespread since there were no, and still no, government health agencies who have sounded an alarm - or caught it and put a hold on the vaccine release for different age groups until uncompromised trials were completed?
The system capture here is so obvious it's blinding.
There are many nested challenges, e.g. system/regulatory capture is not new, but can you think of a single historical example with pervasive lockstep censorship across media, industry and government in multiple countries? Did government relief/stimulus funding distort incentives for health outcomes, e.g. ineffective high-fee ventilators vs. early treatment with existing drugs?
Even in the face of lockstep censorship, as truth/facts surfaced in 2020-2021, why did no organized presentation achieve widespread public visibility? Without an accurate threat model (e.g. infiltration of health freedom groups, https://ccsfreedom.org/), truth will not be sufficient to prevail against organized opposition.
Apparently the existing booster shot elicited a more diverse set of antibodies compared to the ones from just a two shot regimen. Which is kinda interesting. I forget what it's called, but there's this phenomenon in immunology where the immune system can get "stuck" with whatever initial antibodies it comes up with and doesn't adapt well. Seems that wasn't the case with the COVID boosters, thankfully. And that explains why the boosters have been so dramatically more effective against Omicron (80% versus <40% for those with just two shots, natural immunity, etc; IIRC).
But would an Omicron booster have elicited an even "better" set of antibodies? Would we get back to 90% protection like the good ole days?
And of course the big question; is an Omicron booster going to provide better forward protection?
The results of this study are going to be deliciously intriguing.