How severe are Omicron Infections?(nature.com)
nature.com
How severe are Omicron Infections?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-03794-8
104 comments
Please note the data above includes people admitted with an incidental COVID infection and went to hospital for another reason.
I find the data presentation on that site to be quite disappointing. The age brackets 0-5, 6-17, 65-84, 85+, …and 18-64.
For the relative admission rates that's not a problem, but for the absolute numbers... yeah a bar chart isn't a good choice there.
[deleted]
This is not Omicron. As far as I'm aware, main infections in the UK are currently from Delta.
Edit: @downvoters. How do you know hospital cases are currently Omicron? As far as i know there is a delay between new cases and hospitalized cases of multiple days. And the difference isn't shown in the article.
A hospitalized case of delta is averaged at ~ 8,5 days of hospitalization. So we have to wait at least another week.
Edit: @downvoters. How do you know hospital cases are currently Omicron? As far as i know there is a delay between new cases and hospitalized cases of multiple days. And the difference isn't shown in the article.
A hospitalized case of delta is averaged at ~ 8,5 days of hospitalization. So we have to wait at least another week.
Things have changed fast. In London, 86.4% of COVID-19 cases with known S-gene status have s-gene target failure[1] which is a marker of Omicron (albeit with pending sequencing confirmation for certainty[2])
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[2] https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-o...
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[2] https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-o...
Delta hospitalization is averaged at 8,5 days. You're talking about new cases and not currently hospitalized cases, which is what I'm interested in for Omicron.
To know the difference, we should at least wait another week after Omicron takes over new cases in statistics.
To know the difference, we should at least wait another week after Omicron takes over new cases in statistics.
My comment was in response to the statement you made before your edit which was
>>main infections in the UK are currently from Delta.
>>main infections in the UK are currently from Delta.
But that is the number of cases, not the number in the hospital.
Since hospitalization lags, we cannot assume hospitalization based on case numbers.
Since hospitalization lags, we cannot assume hospitalization based on case numbers.
Per [1] As of 18th December, a majority of cases testing with the SGTF (indicator for Omicron) reached over 50% on the 14th December. It's clearer to see in Figure 2.
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
[1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
I have a strong feeling that current hospital cases are mostly delta ( there is a delay between both normally, since delta averages 8,5 days in hospitalization)
Even when new cases could be Omicron.
Either way, we will know soon.
Even when new cases could be Omicron.
Either way, we will know soon.
The latest data released on Friday by the U.K. Health Security Agency indicates that 54% of positive tests in England taken on Tuesday and Wednesday were of Omicron, and more than 80% of cases in London.
As of 12/17, Omicron seems to be around 50% of new cases in UK, measured by proxy with S-gene target failure:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
London is primarily Omicron at this point - it was 50% of infections 4 days ago and spreading much quicker.
Not very severe going by South African data. There's a thing here arguing the case fatality rate has been 19x lower than delta https://twitter.com/pieterstreicher/status/14726238790719365...
There's a graph here of cases vs deaths for the 4 waves in SA showing pretty much no sign of deaths shooting up in this one while they shot up in waves 1,2 and 3. For those saying - ah the South Africans were immune, why didn't that work in wave 3 but did in wave 4 if not for the virus being different? https://mobile.twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1472664060...
The "16 December report from Imperial College London found no evidence of diminished hospitalizations" thing is ridiculous if you look at the paper - they didn't find statistical significance in English data because there was hardly any at that point and didn't even bother looking at African data because why bother. Bit like me saying there is no evidence of Ebola being more dangerous than having a cup of tea because I've done a study in my kitchen and no one has died there.
There's a graph here of cases vs deaths for the 4 waves in SA showing pretty much no sign of deaths shooting up in this one while they shot up in waves 1,2 and 3. For those saying - ah the South Africans were immune, why didn't that work in wave 3 but did in wave 4 if not for the virus being different? https://mobile.twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1472664060...
The "16 December report from Imperial College London found no evidence of diminished hospitalizations" thing is ridiculous if you look at the paper - they didn't find statistical significance in English data because there was hardly any at that point and didn't even bother looking at African data because why bother. Bit like me saying there is no evidence of Ebola being more dangerous than having a cup of tea because I've done a study in my kitchen and no one has died there.
Seems the evidence bar for bad news is quite low, but the bar for good news is unbelievably high. Is there a good source for variant circulation? As a layperson how can I find what percentage of cases in a given area are from omicron vs delta?
In this case, it's neither good nor bad news because there is insufficient data. Per the article:
So far, the data are scarce and incomplete
The rest of the article consists of anecdotes that could point in either direction. If you want good news, check out the piece from WaPo from a few days ago [0]
Just keep in mind the scarce and incomplete factor. Give it another 2-3 weeks and we'll know more. Meanwhile it's probably not a good time to stop whatever precautions you have already been taking.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/14/south-africa...
So far, the data are scarce and incomplete
The rest of the article consists of anecdotes that could point in either direction. If you want good news, check out the piece from WaPo from a few days ago [0]
Just keep in mind the scarce and incomplete factor. Give it another 2-3 weeks and we'll know more. Meanwhile it's probably not a good time to stop whatever precautions you have already been taking.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/12/14/south-africa...
Many people take longer to die of COVID than has elapsed since the first Omicron variant was discovered. We simply don’t know at this point, and won’t for probably 2 months.
Extrapolating from hospitalization rates and limited sample sizes is mostly just guesswork. It’s probably not much worse, but beyond that is up in the air.
Extrapolating from hospitalization rates and limited sample sizes is mostly just guesswork. It’s probably not much worse, but beyond that is up in the air.
The rationale for the bar being at different heights is:
1) the “precautionary principle”
2) the consequence asymmetry: if we’re vigilant at a time when we could relax, the consequence is small, but if we relax when we should increase vigilance, the consequence is larger.
1) the “precautionary principle”
2) the consequence asymmetry: if we’re vigilant at a time when we could relax, the consequence is small, but if we relax when we should increase vigilance, the consequence is larger.
The precautionary principle is garbage. If our hominid ancestors had followed the precautionary principle they would have never come down out of the trees. Embrace risk and accept the consequences.
By the same evolutionary fallacy, you should always trust your gut feeling instead of thinking rationally, because the more primitive centres of your brain are more similar to the parts of the brain that allowed our ancestors to survive in the jungle.
> Seems the evidence bar for bad news is quite low, but the bar for good news is unbelievably high.
It seems safer to believe bad news, and remain wary, than to believe good news and drop your guard.
It seems safer to believe bad news, and remain wary, than to believe good news and drop your guard.
There isn’t much good news, or at least not great news. It seems likely that it’s not _worse_ than delta, and there’s some early evidence that it might be slightly better (eg the 30% lower hospitalisation thing). And it seems like existing vaccines and prior infections are probably at least somewhat protective against severe disease. That’s all good in that it’s not as bad as it could have been; the very worst case scenarios seem to have been all but ruled out. But it’s certainly not good enough for anyone to be feeling particularly optimistic now.
This article summarized the studies and the results are mixed. Not really sure what good news there is yet, aside that it does not appear worse.
Unvaccinated who haven’t had the virus should be very worried due to the transmission. For people with some immunity, the jury is out but personally I am not looking forward to probable mild Covid, until recently I thought I had a good chance of simply not catching it due to being vaccinated. that seems to be no longer the case.
Unvaccinated who haven’t had the virus should be very worried due to the transmission. For people with some immunity, the jury is out but personally I am not looking forward to probable mild Covid, until recently I thought I had a good chance of simply not catching it due to being vaccinated. that seems to be no longer the case.
If good news happens, you don't need to do anything. If bad things happen, you need to do something fast. I don't think this is unreasonable.
That’s what the news business would like you to think. How much action are you taking from the 100+ bad news stories bombarding you every day?
Well I’m a scientist with 12 years of post secondary education in life science (and no conflict of interest), and that’s exactly what I’d like you to think too.
Be reasonable.
Be reasonable.
This is a good argument against technocracy. I want expert's views to be taken into consideration when making decisions that affect other people. I don't want them telling people what to do using the lens of their narrow technical expertise.
I understand what you are saying, but I’m not sure I understand how it relates to what I wrote. Do you mind clarifying that?
What I took from the thread was:
Bad news is reported more, if bad things happen, you need to act fast so it's good to pay close attention to bad news, that's what news organizations want you to think.
And then you commented that as an educated scientist, you also think we should pay close attention to bad news. At least that's how I took it.
Bad news is reported more, if bad things happen, you need to act fast so it's good to pay close attention to bad news, that's what news organizations want you to think.
And then you commented that as an educated scientist, you also think we should pay close attention to bad news. At least that's how I took it.
Right, I see where you’re coming from.
When I wrote my comment, my intended meaning was more specific to the current situation: I really wish people would be more united in taking action in the face of an infectious disease, the transmission of which is entirely preventable in the aggregate.
When I wrote my comment, my intended meaning was more specific to the current situation: I really wish people would be more united in taking action in the face of an infectious disease, the transmission of which is entirely preventable in the aggregate.
Covid. Covid lockdowns. New variants.
These are all things that we have to act on, as individuals. They are all bad news.
Then you have the rest of the 99.999% that you don't need to know, but you do need to know the very few stories. And for that you have to go through all the other ones.
These are all things that we have to act on, as individuals. They are all bad news.
Then you have the rest of the 99.999% that you don't need to know, but you do need to know the very few stories. And for that you have to go through all the other ones.
Sure, that's generally true. But in the case of a global pandemic, I think the comment is valid
Not really. Consuming your daily drip of numbers from the news is hardly any more actionable than checking your local public health officials guidance every quarter
Every quarter? This new variant doubles every two days. You’d best be paying a bit more than checking the PHO every three months!
If you want to read good news, you proactively look for them eg here https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/
>If good news happens, you don't need to do anything. If bad things happen, you need to do something fast.
That is actually a terrible heuristic. The need to “do something fast” leads to tremendous amounts of wasted time and resources and often a codified public policy that is unproductive or counterproductive.
The bias to action over inaction exists, among other reasons, because it plays out conceit that we control our own fate.
That is actually a terrible heuristic. The need to “do something fast” leads to tremendous amounts of wasted time and resources and often a codified public policy that is unproductive or counterproductive.
The bias to action over inaction exists, among other reasons, because it plays out conceit that we control our own fate.
Well, I'd rather try and be wrong than lie down and die and be right.
> If good news happens, you don't need to do anything.
There's plenty you need to stop doing.
There's plenty you need to stop doing.
Can stop doing rather than need to stop doing. Suppose the crime rate drops dramatically, you could be less cautious or keep doing the same things.
I was talking specifically about coronavirus. Let's not get distracted from the 800k+ deaths and counting.
Fear and despair sells better.
But if Omicron happens to be benign enough, it almost acts as a natural vaccine. This would be a very positive development for covid, not negative.
For some reason the focus still seems to be largely on case counts instead of actual outcomes.
Economic impact of lockdowns was mitigated somewhat by mass money printing and fiscal spending. If we lockdown again, will be disastrous for global economy as most monetary and fiscal firepower has been exhausted. Very troubling to see nations moving towards this again
But if Omicron happens to be benign enough, it almost acts as a natural vaccine. This would be a very positive development for covid, not negative.
For some reason the focus still seems to be largely on case counts instead of actual outcomes.
Economic impact of lockdowns was mitigated somewhat by mass money printing and fiscal spending. If we lockdown again, will be disastrous for global economy as most monetary and fiscal firepower has been exhausted. Very troubling to see nations moving towards this again
> For some reason the focus still seems to be largely on case counts instead of actual outcomes.
For vaccines, the focus still seems to be largely the percentage of effectiveness, as if that effectiveness will be a reliable constant for each combination of particular vaccine, particular variant, and particular undesired outcome (case, symptomatic case, hospitalized case, oxygenized case, ventilated case, long covid, death, whatever). However, that effectiveness will almost certainly vary both with the attributes of the person (e.g. age, sex and `comorbidities`) exposed to the variant and with the environment, particularly the number of times the typical vaccinated person is exposed to the variant and how heavily exposed. For example, if we now observe, when omicron is starting to spread, that a vaccine shows 50% reduction in cases or hospitalizations or deaths, what will be the observed reduction when omicron is more prevalent, when it may be common for typical persons to be exposed multiple times per day for a few weeks? Could the 50% reduction still occur? Could the vaccine give a percentage of people super-immunity and the other people none at all? Otherwise, will the increased presence of omicron in the environment overwhelm the effects of the vaccine and drive that observed reduction from vaccination (or boosterization, or whatever) down significantly? What do the experts know from experience about this?
I wish Mr Biden nothing but success in his efforts to get us all doing the right thing, and I hope that his emphasis on vaccination now brings good results.
For vaccines, the focus still seems to be largely the percentage of effectiveness, as if that effectiveness will be a reliable constant for each combination of particular vaccine, particular variant, and particular undesired outcome (case, symptomatic case, hospitalized case, oxygenized case, ventilated case, long covid, death, whatever). However, that effectiveness will almost certainly vary both with the attributes of the person (e.g. age, sex and `comorbidities`) exposed to the variant and with the environment, particularly the number of times the typical vaccinated person is exposed to the variant and how heavily exposed. For example, if we now observe, when omicron is starting to spread, that a vaccine shows 50% reduction in cases or hospitalizations or deaths, what will be the observed reduction when omicron is more prevalent, when it may be common for typical persons to be exposed multiple times per day for a few weeks? Could the 50% reduction still occur? Could the vaccine give a percentage of people super-immunity and the other people none at all? Otherwise, will the increased presence of omicron in the environment overwhelm the effects of the vaccine and drive that observed reduction from vaccination (or boosterization, or whatever) down significantly? What do the experts know from experience about this?
I wish Mr Biden nothing but success in his efforts to get us all doing the right thing, and I hope that his emphasis on vaccination now brings good results.
For some reason the focus still seems to be largely on case counts instead of actual outcomes.
The reason seems obvious - it’s been only 25 days since the discovery of the first case. There haven’t been many outcomes yet to focus on - as far as I remember, the average time between symptom onset and hospitalisation is something like 10 days, depending on the age group.
The reason seems obvious - it’s been only 25 days since the discovery of the first case. There haven’t been many outcomes yet to focus on - as far as I remember, the average time between symptom onset and hospitalisation is something like 10 days, depending on the age group.
Also, incidence is how you track Rt, which is one of the most important metrics for infectious diseases.
> But if Omicron happens to be benign enough
Here's my speculation on the reason that the virus is seeming benignish so far... omicron requires fewer ACE2 receptors to bind to in order for it to infect a host(because of the incredible reproduction rate over delta once it takes hold). The younger are generally not taking as many precautions as the elderly did(elderly have more ACE2 receptors but have mostly been vaccinated or died already). so as the pool of eligible candidates for infection trend younger (fewer ACE2 required moves the bar of easy infection down younger) you have younger people generally having a better time with the infection because their immune system is slightly more robust. and that tracks with younger people (generally) during the delta wave and original variant; younger people tended to have fewer really bad outcomes.
Here's my speculation on the reason that the virus is seeming benignish so far... omicron requires fewer ACE2 receptors to bind to in order for it to infect a host(because of the incredible reproduction rate over delta once it takes hold). The younger are generally not taking as many precautions as the elderly did(elderly have more ACE2 receptors but have mostly been vaccinated or died already). so as the pool of eligible candidates for infection trend younger (fewer ACE2 required moves the bar of easy infection down younger) you have younger people generally having a better time with the infection because their immune system is slightly more robust. and that tracks with younger people (generally) during the delta wave and original variant; younger people tended to have fewer really bad outcomes.
This is the exact problem - there are a hundred different explanations for why news might be good or bad. High case right? Good sometimes!
You need a fully formed view to come to a conclusion based on details and those most qualified to do so are the least willing to do so.
You need a fully formed view to come to a conclusion based on details and those most qualified to do so are the least willing to do so.
I don't think that's right, we all heard the tentative good news as soon as it was available. I think the bias is that there is a massive thirst for certainty and definitive conclusions for each new pandemic development, but science does not work that fast. There's also a bias towards wanting your political side to be proven correct, but the virus doesn't care and has proven all predictions and conclusions wrong at one point or another.
Perhaps so. I’m just on the lookout for good news, and it seems the good news is always wrapped up in caution tape. Maybe I’m just bitter.
I disagree with your statement, but here are the results for the whole UK
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-variants...
and here's the plot for London https://twitter.com/theosanderson/status/1471907339397738502
and here's the plot for London https://twitter.com/theosanderson/status/1471907339397738502
Why is the delta graph blocky and the omicron one smooth?
This looks like the weekend reporting artefact - you can see that Delta cases are lower at the weekend. You can actually see the same effect show itself as a small slowdown in the growth of the Omicron series, but since it’s a rapidly climbing figure it’s a bit harder to make out.
Interesting. Thanks for the link. Do you happen to know of equivalent data for NYC? I’m apparently not adept at finding this information.
Someone made an interesting point that Omicron might become the most virulent disease ever.
So I like how the bar has shifted, because everybody is so fed up with the disruptions to their daily life. Understandably so. But most virulent disease every is still pretty bad. Just from a logistical standpoint.
For me, the real problem is what comes after Omicron.
HIV is a completely different disease with a different etiology but it never went away. Treatments just got better with time.
I suspect the pandemic will force a lot of adaptations and legislation. I’m most excited about rapid testing at home though. I feel like that’ll do a lot to stifle the pandemic.
So I like how the bar has shifted, because everybody is so fed up with the disruptions to their daily life. Understandably so. But most virulent disease every is still pretty bad. Just from a logistical standpoint.
For me, the real problem is what comes after Omicron.
HIV is a completely different disease with a different etiology but it never went away. Treatments just got better with time.
I suspect the pandemic will force a lot of adaptations and legislation. I’m most excited about rapid testing at home though. I feel like that’ll do a lot to stifle the pandemic.
Ease of spread is only notable if it causes bad health outcomes. Policy should only be made in response to actual outcomes, not case counts or other inaccurate proxies.
Historians will look very poorly on the authoritarian type policies being implemented that are, in fact, ignoring the science (actual data, second order effects), not following it.
Historians will look very poorly on the authoritarian type policies being implemented that are, in fact, ignoring the science (actual data, second order effects), not following it.
> Policy should only be made in response to actual outcomes
the problem with that kind of lagging reaction to policy is that if you wait for the results of the variant you may have a situation where you are unable to contain or curtail the virus enough to not overwhelm the hospital systems. deaths and hospitalizations are a very lagging indicator of the effects
the problem with that kind of lagging reaction to policy is that if you wait for the results of the variant you may have a situation where you are unable to contain or curtail the virus enough to not overwhelm the hospital systems. deaths and hospitalizations are a very lagging indicator of the effects
>> the problem with that kind of lagging reaction to policy...
We know that vitamin D helps prevent this kind of thing. We know that most (Americans) are deficient in the winter months. There is evidence to support the idea that it is protective against Covid-19. It is also very safe to take even if you're not deficient.
I have yet to see a PSA or recommendation on this. That could have been proactive rather than lagging.
What I have seen is newer research suggesting that vit D doesnt help, but always with some caviotte like "in people who are not deficient" or one where they administered high doses to people already on ventilators.
We know that vitamin D helps prevent this kind of thing. We know that most (Americans) are deficient in the winter months. There is evidence to support the idea that it is protective against Covid-19. It is also very safe to take even if you're not deficient.
I have yet to see a PSA or recommendation on this. That could have been proactive rather than lagging.
What I have seen is newer research suggesting that vit D doesnt help, but always with some caviotte like "in people who are not deficient" or one where they administered high doses to people already on ventilators.
Evidence on vitamin D is equivocal. [0][1] Experts disagree on how to interpret the various studies that have come out that do not all show the same results.
On the other hand, an official proclamation that people should ensure their vitamin D levels are okay would cause a rush on it with many people taking much more than they should. We've seen this with other medications that have not been systematically shown to help COVID but still obtain meme-like status. Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use, but has resulted in overdoses [2] and a spike in calls to poison control centers over its use [3]
Maybe there's a middle ground there on something like vitamin D, which as you say is often deficient. But it's a fine line to walk when the evidence is uncertain about its impact on COVID.
[0] https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/sup...
[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/e...
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/man-covid-overdoses-ivermectin-doct...
[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
On the other hand, an official proclamation that people should ensure their vitamin D levels are okay would cause a rush on it with many people taking much more than they should. We've seen this with other medications that have not been systematically shown to help COVID but still obtain meme-like status. Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use, but has resulted in overdoses [2] and a spike in calls to poison control centers over its use [3]
Maybe there's a middle ground there on something like vitamin D, which as you say is often deficient. But it's a fine line to walk when the evidence is uncertain about its impact on COVID.
[0] https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/sup...
[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/e...
[2] https://www.newsweek.com/man-covid-overdoses-ivermectin-doct...
[3] https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...
> Ivermectin for example also has only equivocal evidence for its use
well it was actually pretty promising in some countries data early on. the problem is when you extrapolate that data to the world at large you have problems with populations. so yes, ivermectin is useful in areas that have parasites that can cause the host to die from when in a weakened state due to the immunosupressing drugs that they give to stop the cytokine storms that kill covid patients, exactly the populations that the data showed a benefit from and also standard course in those countries. when done in places without a high risk of secondary parasitic infection the data was that it was not useful.
There were/are some studies done now because it's so cheap but it's not really all that effective outside of it being an secondary treatment in those parasitic prone countries.
But since it showed promise there the antivaxxers were hell bent on using it regardless of the why because it wasn't a vaccine and here we are.
Too much vitamin D is bad too and you definitely don't want that and without data supporting it being highly effective against covid it's not useful as a prophylactic. That said, vitamin D is generally correlated with a better immune system response against respiratory illness. supplementing a reasonable amount is not usually considered harmful but it's wise to talk to a doctor.
well it was actually pretty promising in some countries data early on. the problem is when you extrapolate that data to the world at large you have problems with populations. so yes, ivermectin is useful in areas that have parasites that can cause the host to die from when in a weakened state due to the immunosupressing drugs that they give to stop the cytokine storms that kill covid patients, exactly the populations that the data showed a benefit from and also standard course in those countries. when done in places without a high risk of secondary parasitic infection the data was that it was not useful.
There were/are some studies done now because it's so cheap but it's not really all that effective outside of it being an secondary treatment in those parasitic prone countries.
But since it showed promise there the antivaxxers were hell bent on using it regardless of the why because it wasn't a vaccine and here we are.
Too much vitamin D is bad too and you definitely don't want that and without data supporting it being highly effective against covid it's not useful as a prophylactic. That said, vitamin D is generally correlated with a better immune system response against respiratory illness. supplementing a reasonable amount is not usually considered harmful but it's wise to talk to a doctor.
Those first 2 links suggest to me that it's worth trying.
The second two are just about misuse of ivermectin.
I think informing the public of this option is a good idea. They could also be informed not to take it in excess. This whole concept about withholding information or trying to influence peoples behavior is part of the problem.
Vitamin D should have been proposed in the beginning due to its documented effects on reducing respiratory illness, but even then anything people suggested was being shot down as not FDA approved treatment for Covid. But there weren't any such treatments at the time.
The second two are just about misuse of ivermectin.
I think informing the public of this option is a good idea. They could also be informed not to take it in excess. This whole concept about withholding information or trying to influence peoples behavior is part of the problem.
Vitamin D should have been proposed in the beginning due to its documented effects on reducing respiratory illness, but even then anything people suggested was being shot down as not FDA approved treatment for Covid. But there weren't any such treatments at the time.
This whole concept about withholding information
The first two links specifically say there is not enough information to make a full determination. Public health policy shouldn't be based on "We don't really know, but maybe?"
Also it's not withholding information:
Proper nutritional guidelines are published all over the place, including recommended daily intake of vitamins, and we've known pretty much from the beginning that otherwise healthy people are much safer from COVID. That seems more than sufficient to provide people with guidelines about how to stay low risk for COVID with respect to their diet. The government shouldn't have to spoon feed every detail, a little self-reliance should be expected of the population. Especially when singling out any one substance could result in unanticipated consequences.
The first two links specifically say there is not enough information to make a full determination. Public health policy shouldn't be based on "We don't really know, but maybe?"
Also it's not withholding information:
Proper nutritional guidelines are published all over the place, including recommended daily intake of vitamins, and we've known pretty much from the beginning that otherwise healthy people are much safer from COVID. That seems more than sufficient to provide people with guidelines about how to stay low risk for COVID with respect to their diet. The government shouldn't have to spoon feed every detail, a little self-reliance should be expected of the population. Especially when singling out any one substance could result in unanticipated consequences.
>> The first two links specifically say there is not enough information to make a full determination. Public health policy shouldn't be based on "We don't really know, but maybe?
They say that up front but then go on to site some rather compelling results. Then they mention some of the failures - like giving it to people who are already on deaths doorstep and not being effective. They also mention that "observational studies" are ongoing, which also suggests there is hope.
>> Also it's not withholding information:
Proper nutritional guidelines are published all over the place, including recommended daily intake of vitamins, and we've known pretty much from the beginning that otherwise healthy people are much safer from COVID.
Nobody is reminding people of that in regard to Covid. ALL the messaging is "get the vaccine". I've said in other threads that I've had Covid, and that offers better protection than the vaccine, so why do people keep insisting that I should get it? The response (which is valid) is that it will offer even more protection, and that we should do everything we can to slow the spread. Well, if we want to do everything we can then why is "everything" restricted to just getting the vaccine? Where are the calls for people to keep in shape, lose weight, make sure they get good nutrition - in relation to preventing Covid?
They say that up front but then go on to site some rather compelling results. Then they mention some of the failures - like giving it to people who are already on deaths doorstep and not being effective. They also mention that "observational studies" are ongoing, which also suggests there is hope.
>> Also it's not withholding information:
Proper nutritional guidelines are published all over the place, including recommended daily intake of vitamins, and we've known pretty much from the beginning that otherwise healthy people are much safer from COVID.
Nobody is reminding people of that in regard to Covid. ALL the messaging is "get the vaccine". I've said in other threads that I've had Covid, and that offers better protection than the vaccine, so why do people keep insisting that I should get it? The response (which is valid) is that it will offer even more protection, and that we should do everything we can to slow the spread. Well, if we want to do everything we can then why is "everything" restricted to just getting the vaccine? Where are the calls for people to keep in shape, lose weight, make sure they get good nutrition - in relation to preventing Covid?
Again, the government shouldn't have to spoon feed everything. They've said repeatedly that people without underlying conditions are at less risk. They shouldn't have to put out a PSA on the food pyramid and recommended daily intake of various nutrients: literally anyone with more than a grade school education is aware of these things.
Should they also be saying avoid second hand smoke to minimize respiratory problems if you get COVID? Should tell diabetics to keep their blood sugar between 70 and 120, and their A1C below 7, to avoid additional complications if they get COVID? Should they be plastering PSAs all over the news media to tell the millions of obsese people to lose weight due to COVID?
No, of course not. Some things, like following established nutritional guidelines, are just obvious and it would be an overbearing nanny state to expect the government to be condescending enough to do this sort of thing.
Should they also be saying avoid second hand smoke to minimize respiratory problems if you get COVID? Should tell diabetics to keep their blood sugar between 70 and 120, and their A1C below 7, to avoid additional complications if they get COVID? Should they be plastering PSAs all over the news media to tell the millions of obsese people to lose weight due to COVID?
No, of course not. Some things, like following established nutritional guidelines, are just obvious and it would be an overbearing nanny state to expect the government to be condescending enough to do this sort of thing.
A quick Google search indicates that vitamin d deficiency happens less often in the UK (1/5th adults) than in the US (2/3rd adults), yet we don't see that people in the UK are significantly less susceptible to get severely ill due to covid.
Poor "I feel lucky" sources:
https://patient.info/bones-joints-muscles/osteoporosis-leafl...
https://www.medscape.com/answers/128762-54281/what-is-the-pr...
Note: reason might be vitamin d supplements in ordinary food is more common in the UK.
Poor "I feel lucky" sources:
https://patient.info/bones-joints-muscles/osteoporosis-leafl...
https://www.medscape.com/answers/128762-54281/what-is-the-pr...
Note: reason might be vitamin d supplements in ordinary food is more common in the UK.
It's been weeks since the variant started to spread. If outcomes were noticeably worse than Delta, it would be evident by now. It being milder or the same is better supported by the evidence.
You can think of any hypothetical worst case and make irrational policy on the basis. Maybe next year's flu strain will cause any who catch it to die one year from infection?
You can think of any hypothetical worst case and make irrational policy on the basis. Maybe next year's flu strain will cause any who catch it to die one year from infection?
No, people often take over a month to die from COVID, we simply haven’t had enough time to collect data especially when the first few cases represent a tiny sample.
This is one of those enough information ask again later situations.
This is one of those enough information ask again later situations.
I don’t think I’ve seen any suggestion that outcomes are worse, or policies made with that assumption.
At the moment, the evidence we have available suggests that Omicron is much more transmissible than Delta, and between 0-30% less likely to result in hospitalisation. It certainly seems like policy is being made with that in mind.
At the moment, the evidence we have available suggests that Omicron is much more transmissible than Delta, and between 0-30% less likely to result in hospitalisation. It certainly seems like policy is being made with that in mind.
Most evidence I see suggests it's many fewer hospitalizations.
Stats from a recent Denmark study show 60% fewer
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/14726914313367265...
But people don't want good news with covid. They want to fearmonger as if we can eliminate 100% of cases through authoritarian policy. Which think I don't need to state, will never happen, regardless if 100% of society is vaccinated with a booster and we perpetually lockdown.
It's an endemic disease, that's life.
Zero heed is paid to the extremely costly second order effects of these extreme policies. One of which was a massive increase in wealth inequality, by the way
Stats from a recent Denmark study show 60% fewer
https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/14726914313367265...
But people don't want good news with covid. They want to fearmonger as if we can eliminate 100% of cases through authoritarian policy. Which think I don't need to state, will never happen, regardless if 100% of society is vaccinated with a booster and we perpetually lockdown.
It's an endemic disease, that's life.
Zero heed is paid to the extremely costly second order effects of these extreme policies. One of which was a massive increase in wealth inequality, by the way
I’m very happy to see more evidence that suggests the severity may be lower, but it is still very early days.
I honestly don’t recognise your portrayal of fearmongering or a desire for negative news. In fact I’ve been particularly surprised by the response to this variant in some circles, which is to hop right on to the tiniest shred of potential positive evidence as a cast-iron guarantee that it’s no big deal. Everybody really wants this to go away, and there is extensive debate in every country about the second-order effects of control measures.
I honestly don’t recognise your portrayal of fearmongering or a desire for negative news. In fact I’ve been particularly surprised by the response to this variant in some circles, which is to hop right on to the tiniest shred of potential positive evidence as a cast-iron guarantee that it’s no big deal. Everybody really wants this to go away, and there is extensive debate in every country about the second-order effects of control measures.
By and large the people advocating extreme caution with covid are looking at policy from a single variable perspective.
The population looks at multiple variables. IE their quality of life, their financial situation, their desire for social connection.
Any policy that looks at a single or small number or variables, vs the holistic system is a policy that's not "following the science".
If you drive through the south of the US, you'll find that nobody masks and they live life as if covid never existed. And their health outcomes are basically exactly the same as NY or CA. So what effect do these policies have? The science shows, basically nothing other than harming quality of life
The population looks at multiple variables. IE their quality of life, their financial situation, their desire for social connection.
Any policy that looks at a single or small number or variables, vs the holistic system is a policy that's not "following the science".
If you drive through the south of the US, you'll find that nobody masks and they live life as if covid never existed. And their health outcomes are basically exactly the same as NY or CA. So what effect do these policies have? The science shows, basically nothing other than harming quality of life
False positive good news would be much worse than false negative.
fewer then what in what population?
Why don't you read the link in the post?
You mentioned a study, but there’s no DOI, journal, or preprint link… do you mean the blog post linked in the Twitter thread?
Edit: I guess I don’t see why there would be time for a DOI or peer review, but I could see there being time for a preprint. Why wouldn’t you just link to the primary source when it’s ambiguous like this?
Edit: I guess I don’t see why there would be time for a DOI or peer review, but I could see there being time for a preprint. Why wouldn’t you just link to the primary source when it’s ambiguous like this?
It's probably better to ratchet up precautions slightly for the additional 2-3 weeks from now that it will take to get more data.
I don't think history will look poorly on a scenario of "A more infectious version of COVID emerged, so for the following 6-8 weeks we asked people to increase social distancing and mask wearing".
If the mandate was "Cancel Christmas and arrest people found at holiday parties" then yes, "authoritarian" history would look poorly on that. As it stands, I haven't seen any governments take drastic steps towards more lockdowns due to Omicron. It's all "urging more caution".
I don't think history will look poorly on a scenario of "A more infectious version of COVID emerged, so for the following 6-8 weeks we asked people to increase social distancing and mask wearing".
If the mandate was "Cancel Christmas and arrest people found at holiday parties" then yes, "authoritarian" history would look poorly on that. As it stands, I haven't seen any governments take drastic steps towards more lockdowns due to Omicron. It's all "urging more caution".
The Dutch are entering a pretty strict lockdown https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59713503.
Strict limits will be placed on the number of people who can meet - a maximum of two guests aged 13 and over will be allowed in people's homes, and four on 24-26 December and on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day.
That seems unecessarily excessive, but in the face of a surge combined with a short deadline (expires Jan 9th) I would be hard pressed to write that down in the history books as and authoritarian atrocity.
I'm not so sure, some countries that clamped down very hard("Authoritarian type policies") like Singapore, Korea or New Zealand have done quite well, while countries who did half measures ("USA, Italy") or very little ("Brazil") seem to be struggling.
health outcomes vary widely by location. South Africa seems to be particularly less severe than in other places (suggesting population and environmental factors may play a big role). The fact is that in other countries death rates are still rising so there's a lot of unknowns and the science says this could be really bad
The science says destroying the global economy with lockdowns is bad too.
Do we make all policy on the basis of one variable, or do we look at the multivariate system holistically? Majority of countries are doing the former, which is not "following the science" but cherry picking a subset of the science that reinforces your view.
I can assure you everybody on earth catching covid would be less severe and painful than the GFC was for global population. Which is pretty easily borne out by the data (the science).
A second global lockdown would have pretty similar results to the GFC, given that ammo for stimulus is spent.
Do we make all policy on the basis of one variable, or do we look at the multivariate system holistically? Majority of countries are doing the former, which is not "following the science" but cherry picking a subset of the science that reinforces your view.
I can assure you everybody on earth catching covid would be less severe and painful than the GFC was for global population. Which is pretty easily borne out by the data (the science).
A second global lockdown would have pretty similar results to the GFC, given that ammo for stimulus is spent.
The issue is transmissibility rather than severity. Say it was 50% less severe but 25% more infectious that would cause hospital infrastructure to fail because the absolute number of hospitalisations go up as more people are infected.
Depends where the thing peaks. In SA cases seem to have peaked already with fairly modest hospitalisations.
[deleted]
Also the fact that the severity of omicron varies from country to country. In the US it is likely to be much more severe than in South Africa
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/12/17/1065315...
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/12/17/1065315...
We solved a complex bio-engineering immunity problem in record time, but we cannot solve a simple logistic problem of whatever special treatment hospitals are doing.
My take on this is that if you live in a country where there was widespread use of less effective vaccines, where resources are limited for booster doses, and there is very limited access to treatments which we now know reduce disease severity after infection (sotrovimab probably still works for Omicron infections and paxlovid almost certainly does), then Omicron is going to be bad.
Unfortunately a lot of the world which isn't Europe and North America seems to fit into this category.
Unfortunately a lot of the world which isn't Europe and North America seems to fit into this category.
[deleted]
It's important to note the severity of omicron seems to vary a lot from country to country. Omicron in South Africa seems to be much less severe than in other countries.
Also if you do wanna take the hot take of omicron spreading and displacing other variants, then it's still very important to get the booster shot. The vaccine has a much bigger effect on those variants than on omicron. In Norway at a party of 120 fully vaccinated people, 80 of them got infected with omicron. So no matter what, it's still important to get your boosters!
Also if you do wanna take the hot take of omicron spreading and displacing other variants, then it's still very important to get the booster shot. The vaccine has a much bigger effect on those variants than on omicron. In Norway at a party of 120 fully vaccinated people, 80 of them got infected with omicron. So no matter what, it's still important to get your boosters!
Why do you say it is still important to get your boosters?
https://news.yahoo.com/booster-shots-neutralize-omicron-isra...
Early lab tests suggest the antibodies generated by the immune system after the booster shot are able to target and eliminate Omicron particles. “ Those who did not receive the booster shots, had no neutralization ability against Omicron. Researchers said the booster increased this about a hundred fold.”
Early lab tests suggest the antibodies generated by the immune system after the booster shot are able to target and eliminate Omicron particles. “ Those who did not receive the booster shots, had no neutralization ability against Omicron. Researchers said the booster increased this about a hundred fold.”
Because it strongly limits the spread of other variants and only weakly limits the spread of omicron. Which means if you were cheering for omicron in the rat race, getting the booster would actually give it a competitive advantage
Trolling.
> Similarly, a 16 December report from Imperial College London found no evidence of diminished hospitalizations from Omicron infections compared with Delta in England, although this was again based on relatively few cases.
I trust almost nothing that comes out of Imperial College these days. The architect and the salesman of the first lockdown (to Boris and then Trump) clearly did not believe in them enough to apply them to himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist)...
I trust almost nothing that comes out of Imperial College these days. The architect and the salesman of the first lockdown (to Boris and then Trump) clearly did not believe in them enough to apply them to himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Ferguson_(epidemiologist)...
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare?areaType=...
Admissions are rising markedly, compared to flat for the rest of the UK. Omicron is surging in London, again (as yet) flat elsewhere.