4 ms·

True, but everyone's going to get exposed to Omicron anyway, unless something more even transmissible takes it's place. So, why not skip straight to Omicron and

by vosper 5y ago

True, but everyone's going to get exposed to Omicron anyway, unless something more even transmissible takes it's place. So, why not skip straight to Omicron and maybe have better health outcomes by eliminating Delta?

nikolay 5y ago
Because this means tens of millions of more dead bodies. So far, we have less than 300M infected on record with 5.3M dead. The real numbers are probably 5 times higher, i.e. a lot of people will die. Also, with the immune escape, those 300M are not greatly protected either.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  > Because this means tens of millions of more dead bodies. What gives? Many countries have >80% vaccination rate (doubled vaccinated). Actually, where are we expecting these dead bodies to be, and why? If we answer that, maybe we can solve it.
  - nikolay 5y ago
    I can only admire your Christmas spirit!
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      Huh? Sigh... I suppose you misunderstood it.
- vosper 5y ago
  I’m talking about a scenario where Omicron is strictly “better” than Delta. Why would that necessarily lead to more dead people than we’d get with Delta?
  - bilalnpe 5y ago
    If it's faster spreading, it could "overwhelm the healthcare system" in areas where Delta would have been manageable.
    - vosper 5y ago
      But again, that’s not the scenario I’m talking about > If Omicron turns out to have better health outcomes than Delta, even with the increased transmissibility
      - srean 5y ago
        The problem is that sentence is still too vague. If you make a more quantitative statement it would be easier to engage with. Requiring hospitalization but 10X higher probability compared to delta for surviving hospitalization can be described as "to have better health outcomes than Delta". But if transmissibility is higher it can still overwhelm the hospital infrastructure and cause more deaths by making beds a scarce commodity not only for those affected by covid but also others who need a hospitalization bed. Note that a multiplicative factor reduction in the probability of surviving, becomes just a time shift during exponential growth phase of the spread. With a doubling rate of 2 days, a 1/16 factor is a delay of 8 days. It shifts the curve, does not flatten it, at least not at the off-peak regime.
    - listenallyall 5y ago
      Does anyone actually still buy into the "overwhelm the health system" narrative? I mean, that was the original reasoning for initiating lockdowns (two weeks to stop the spread, flatten the curve) and it's repeatedly been threatened but never actually come to fruition. Indeed, healthcare workers are busy, dedicated and hard-working, and I'm sure they would like Covid to end, but the idea that scores of people are dying untreated because hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid cases seems not to have ever materialized. (Except maybe NY under Cuomo's watch)
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      Anecdote and all, but... Look, my family members work in healthcare all over the country. There is no "overwhelm the the healthcare system" crap. There is, however, locked down departments, shut down services, and reduced amount of surgeries. Those are due to policies, and have nothing to do with COVID-19.
- noxer 5y ago
  >Because this means tens of millions of more dead bodies. That implies there are tens of million dead bodies already but there aren't. There are maybe a few millions at most. From which only a part it accrual excess death and from that only a part is excess death that actually reduced average age below life expectancy by a signification margin i.e. shortened the life by several month. If the virus would go away now we should see less death in the coming years which further diminishes the actual effect. Just to put in in perspective there may be 5 million COVID associated deaths in a time frame (~2 years) where 120 million death are expected And 280 million new people are expect to have been born (unclear if COVID has a positive or negative effect on this number). Needless to say COVID does not even make a dent in the growth of the global population. It may slow growth down by like 1-2% that means 2 years of COVID made the global population lag behind is a few days compared to no COVID.
  - kapilvt 5y ago
    Excess deaths estimates are in excess of 10million. Ie totals of 18.4 with 95 confidence.. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
    - noxer 5y ago
      Thats still not "tens of millions" and a huge portion of these will be caused by the measurement done in the name of fighting COVID. Either way smoking has killed more people each year for many years now than COVID + all pandemic related excess death in one year together. That should give a context of how minuscule it is on a global scale. Like we are still an order of magnitudes away from making the global population stop growing. If you know a person who died due to COVID and everyone you know also know a person who died due to COVID then everyone subjectively things many many people died but most people know 100+ people and every person who dies was know by many people so in reality only a fraction of a percent of all people would need to die for this to be statically true.

by vosper 5y ago

nikolay 5y ago

Because this means tens of millions of more dead bodies. So far, we have less than 300M infected on record with 5.3M dead. The real numbers are probably 5 times higher, i.e. a lot of people will die. Also, with the immune escape, those 300M are not greatly protected either.

johnisgood 5y ago
> Because this means tens of millions of more dead bodies. What gives? Many countries have >80% vaccination rate (doubled vaccinated). Actually, where are we expecting these dead bodies to be, and why? If we answer that, maybe we can solve it.
- nikolay 5y ago
  I can only admire your Christmas spirit!
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    Huh? Sigh... I suppose you misunderstood it.
vosper 5y ago
I’m talking about a scenario where Omicron is strictly “better” than Delta. Why would that necessarily lead to more dead people than we’d get with Delta?
- bilalnpe 5y ago
  If it's faster spreading, it could "overwhelm the healthcare system" in areas where Delta would have been manageable.
  - vosper 5y ago
    But again, that’s not the scenario I’m talking about > If Omicron turns out to have better health outcomes than Delta, even with the increased transmissibility
    - srean 5y ago
      The problem is that sentence is still too vague. If you make a more quantitative statement it would be easier to engage with. Requiring hospitalization but 10X higher probability compared to delta for surviving hospitalization can be described as "to have better health outcomes than Delta". But if transmissibility is higher it can still overwhelm the hospital infrastructure and cause more deaths by making beds a scarce commodity not only for those affected by covid but also others who need a hospitalization bed. Note that a multiplicative factor reduction in the probability of surviving, becomes just a time shift during exponential growth phase of the spread. With a doubling rate of 2 days, a 1/16 factor is a delay of 8 days. It shifts the curve, does not flatten it, at least not at the off-peak regime.
  - listenallyall 5y ago
    Does anyone actually still buy into the "overwhelm the health system" narrative? I mean, that was the original reasoning for initiating lockdowns (two weeks to stop the spread, flatten the curve) and it's repeatedly been threatened but never actually come to fruition. Indeed, healthcare workers are busy, dedicated and hard-working, and I'm sure they would like Covid to end, but the idea that scores of people are dying untreated because hospitals are overwhelmed with Covid cases seems not to have ever materialized. (Except maybe NY under Cuomo's watch)
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    Anecdote and all, but... Look, my family members work in healthcare all over the country. There is no "overwhelm the the healthcare system" crap. There is, however, locked down departments, shut down services, and reduced amount of surgeries. Those are due to policies, and have nothing to do with COVID-19.
noxer 5y ago
>Because this means tens of millions of more dead bodies. That implies there are tens of million dead bodies already but there aren't. There are maybe a few millions at most. From which only a part it accrual excess death and from that only a part is excess death that actually reduced average age below life expectancy by a signification margin i.e. shortened the life by several month. If the virus would go away now we should see less death in the coming years which further diminishes the actual effect. Just to put in in perspective there may be 5 million COVID associated deaths in a time frame (~2 years) where 120 million death are expected And 280 million new people are expect to have been born (unclear if COVID has a positive or negative effect on this number). Needless to say COVID does not even make a dent in the growth of the global population. It may slow growth down by like 1-2% that means 2 years of COVID made the global population lag behind is a few days compared to no COVID.
- kapilvt 5y ago
  Excess deaths estimates are in excess of 10million. Ie totals of 18.4 with 95 confidence.. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-estimates https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-...
  - noxer 5y ago
    Thats still not "tens of millions" and a huge portion of these will be caused by the measurement done in the name of fighting COVID. Either way smoking has killed more people each year for many years now than COVID + all pandemic related excess death in one year together. That should give a context of how minuscule it is on a global scale. Like we are still an order of magnitudes away from making the global population stop growing. If you know a person who died due to COVID and everyone you know also know a person who died due to COVID then everyone subjectively things many many people died but most people know 100+ people and every person who dies was know by many people so in reality only a fraction of a percent of all people would need to die for this to be statically true.