Could you please clarify this: "Altogether, these results indicate that Omicron is poorly or not neutralized by vaccinees’ sera sampled 5 months after vaccination. The booster dose triggered a detectable cross-neutralization activity against Omicron. However, even after the booster dose the variant displayed a reduction of ED50 of 18 and 6 fold, when compared to D614G and Delta, respectively."

OK I accept this answer. It basically says that there is some use - namely that after a booster there is some , reduced, neutralising activity. However, given that disease severity is on a par with the common cold, and given that frequent boosting compromises immunity, I personally conclude that mass vaccination is now counterproductive.

@Frank Sigh.. I'm not sure how you managed to read my answer or any of the research papers linked therein or even the ones linked in your question, and draw that erroneous conclusion.

Further the graphs on severe cases do not apply, regarding Omicron. I don't agree that booster jabs will necessarily decrease severe cases. The very fact that people will be being asked to go to centers and congregate has an effect, and it is known that in vitro at least spike protein interferes with (and compromises) immune processes in the nucleus.

How is it erroneous? Omicron displaces Delta and the actual statistical results so far are that Omicron is inversely correlated to death rate. Therefore the correct approach is to allow it to spread. Your assertion that booster reduce death rate is not backed up.

@Frank I don't believe there is strong evidence at this point to suggest that omicron displaces delta (that is, that those infected with omicron are strongly protected from delta or other strains; to the contrary, reinfection of people with omicron who were previously infected with other strains may suggest that immune responses to one don't cross over to the other very well), and despite the optimistic suggestions that omicron infection is less dangerous it's quite a leap to conclude that the "correct approach is to allow it to spread".

@BryanKrause I am astonished you would say such a thing. The evidence that Omicron displaces Delta is beyond overwhelming.

@Frank Citation for "beyond overwhelming"? Growing faster than delta or becoming more common than delta is not the same as displacing it. I am aware of at least one study out of SA that suggests it could displace delta, but I think a lot more evidence is needed before reaching the conclusions you are drawing.

@BryanKrause Why? All available statistics show Delta being rapidly replaced by Omicron in absolute infection numbers and death rates dropping. What more citations do you want?

@Frank Being replaced as the most common strain isn't the same as replacing delta cases with omicron cases. What you'd want to know is whether the spread of omicron prevents the spread of delta, not merely whether there are more omicron cases than delta cases.

I am beginning to see that what we have here is an echochamber. What use is a medical sciences board where the participants and moderators cherrypick facts, ignore publicly available stats, and project beliefs onto their interpretation of published research?

@BryanKrause All absolute Delta case numbers are dropping as Omicron spreads. It is outcompeting Delta. Delta is vanishing. As Omicron spreads, Delta cases go to zero. If you are saying that correlation is not causation, I think in this case the burden of proof is on you.

@Frank What beliefs am I projecting or cherrypicking? I'm very hopeful that what we're seeing with omicron could change the way the pandemic proceeds from here, but we don't have the data to show that yet. You seem to be misinterpreting the high rate of spread of omicron to think that this means it's preventing other more virulent strains from carrying on at the same time. In my own part of the world, delta is still about half of all cases so even though there is an omicron surge to go with it we're still very much dealing with the delta wave still.

@Frank "Delta is vanishing. As Omicron spreads, Delta cases go to zero" - I asked for a citation for this and your response was "the evidence is beyond overwhelming". It's not very convincing when someone says they have a mountain of evidence and yet cannot point to it.

Omicron infection does not need to prevent Delta reinfection. It merely has to be more contagious.

@Frank If omicron doesn't prevent delta infection, then its spread is irrelevant to delta. Delta would continue to spread exactly the same as if omicron didn't even exist. If, on the other hand, previous infection with omicron makes you less likely to get delta, then yes, spread of omicron will impair the spread of delta, because everyone who has had omicron is immunized against delta.

@BryanKrause Omicron infection enhances neutralizing immunity against the Delta varian t medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.27.21268439v1

Despite the citation , I dont see the need for it. The stats show the truth as self evident

@Frank Thank you; yes, this is the small SA study I mentioned earlier. It's a promising data point from 13 subjects; I hope it holds up because it will really make things a lot easier around the world.

@BryanKrause Like I say, the burden of proof is on explaining why the stats may not indicate that omicron displaces delta, not looking for research that supports the stats.

@BryanKrause "If omicron doesn't prevent delta infection, " ... I did not say infection. I said reinfection. Omicron obviously prevents Delta infection, during infection. So a faster Omicron must suppress Delta.

@Frank "Omicron obviously prevents Delta infection, during infection" "So a faster Omicron must suppress Delta." - by what mechanism? I don't think it's necessary to contrast reinfections with infections here, unless by "reinfection" you're counting an infection with omicron and then an infection by delta as a "reinfection". You could just as easily consider each a separate infection, just like you would if they were much more distinct viruses (say, a coronavirus and a rhinovirus).