[HN Gopher] How severe are Omicron Infections?
___________________________________________________________________
How severe are Omicron Infections?
Author : News-Dog
Score : 37 points
Date : 2021-12-19 20:52 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| parkingrift wrote:
| 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?
| epgui wrote:
| 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.
| tehjoker wrote:
| 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.
| hanoz wrote:
| _> If good news happens, you don 't need to do anything._
|
| There's plenty you need to stop doing.
| Retric wrote:
| 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.
| TheGigaChad wrote:
| Idiot.
| scns wrote:
| If you want to read good news, you proactively look for them
| eg here https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/
| redisman wrote:
| 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?
| epgui wrote:
| 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.
| culi wrote:
| Sure, that's generally true. But in the case of a global
| pandemic, I think the comment is valid
| adam_arthur wrote:
| 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
| epgui wrote:
| This is an editorial in the world's top scientific journal--
| they don't need to "sell" anything, and they need neither
| clicks nor views.
| weaksauce wrote:
| > 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.
| Traster wrote:
| 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.
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| _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.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| 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.
| parkingrift wrote:
| 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.
| throwhauser wrote:
| > 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.
| sega_sai wrote:
| 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
| parkingrift wrote:
| Interesting. Thanks for the link. Do you happen to know of
| equivalent data for NYC? I'm apparently not adept at finding
| this information.
| the-dude wrote:
| Why is the delta graph blocky and the omicron one smooth?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| 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.
| mint2 wrote:
| 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.
| ineedasername wrote:
| 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...
| Retric wrote:
| 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.
| MaxMoney wrote:
| News is a conflict of interest. The business model relies on
| viewership numbers to sell advertisements. The more the news
| can drive up viewership, the more they can make selling ads.
| The best way to get viewership up has little to do with actual,
| factual news.
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Hospital data from London:
|
| 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.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| 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.
| leoedin wrote:
| London is primarily Omicron at this point - it was 50% of
| infections 4 days ago and spreading much quicker.
| metafunctor wrote:
| 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.
| sterlind wrote:
| 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/.
| ..
| turnerc wrote:
| 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/uploa
| ds/...
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| 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.
| drited wrote:
| 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/uploa
| ds/...
|
| [2] https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-
| of-o...
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| 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.
| parkingrift wrote:
| 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.
| contravariant wrote:
| 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.
| turnerc wrote:
| Please note the data above includes people admitted with an
| incidental COVID infection and went to hospital for another
| reason.
| [deleted]
| DantesKite wrote:
| 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.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| 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.
| ineedasername wrote:
| 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".
| michaelbrave wrote:
| 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.
| weaksauce wrote:
| > 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
| phkahler wrote:
| >> 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.
| ineedasername wrote:
| 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/therap
| ies/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...
| adam_arthur wrote:
| 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?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| 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.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Most evidence I see suggests it's many fewer
| hospitalizations.
|
| Stats from a recent Denmark study show 60% fewer
|
| https://twitter.com/BallouxFrancois/status/14726914313367
| 265...
|
| 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
| wetpaws wrote:
| False positive good news would be much worse than false
| negative.
| freemint wrote:
| fewer then what in what population?
| adam_arthur wrote:
| Why don't you read the link in the post?
| matthewmacleod wrote:
| 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.
| adam_arthur wrote:
| 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
| Retric wrote:
| 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.
| culi wrote:
| 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
| adam_arthur wrote:
| 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.
| Gatsky wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| yung_steezy wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| culi wrote:
| 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...
| culi wrote:
| 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!
| chrismcb wrote:
| Why do you say it is still important to get your boosters?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-19 23:01 UTC)