I think parent post is implying that the situation with Omicron is much more complicated.
Alpha, Delta variants, sure, we can see them evolving pretty much site by site to become the things that they are. There are enough uploaded sequences you can basically watch it happening.
I suppose you can blame the unvaxxed for increasing the probability of such variants.
But Omicron turns up with a freakishly weird number of synonymous vs non-synonymous mutations in the spike, lots of adaptions for immune evasion and... it's rooted in the phylogenetic tree back in 2020? So it just evolved in secret for 18 months, becoming incredibly transmissible while managing not to infect a single person who got sequenced? Bear in mind that is conservatively 100 generations, usually. It's super weird. Whatever process produced Omicron, it was radically different than regular infection and transmission.
This is not something we could reasonably have expected from say, increased infections due to some people not being vaccinated.
In fact all the variants from "regular" transmission over the course of this pandemic - the result of hundreds of millions of infections - are being out-competed by this bolt from the blue.
"... 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."
But hey, don't let mere science stand in the way of a good catchphrase.
EDIT: I'm quite aware I won't change anybody's opinions. I'm also aware that providing opposing evidence will even strengthen beliefs. So, yeah, I shouldn't have risen to the bait. Regardless, good luck!
This would be a lot more constructive if you included a link. Or at least explained more.
Not everyone reading will have the same background you do, especially when the issue is something technical like discounting a serology study because you know of more convincing ones.
There's a lot of talk of antibodies because researchers studying vaccine effectiveness prior to everyone being exposed need something to measure.
It's hard to measure the overall effectiveness of a person's immune response, so they measure antibodies, which are not the whole story. It might not even be the important part. I think this is why GP is derisive of serology.
The immune system is quite complicated.
Personally I suspect that advising people who had breakthrough infections to keep getting boosters will turn out to be bad advice. We'll see I guess.
But anymore, I’m beyond caring. Anti-vax stance is a self correcting problem.
I mourn for the young being indoctrinated, and for the immunocompromised, but those who could help them have made their choices.