5 ms·

Is there any evidence that shows that omicron is even particularly dangerous? There has a been a “savior” strain that a lot of us have been hoping for which is

by blhack 5y ago

Is there any evidence that shows that omicron is even particularly dangerous? There has a been a “savior” strain that a lot of us have been hoping for which is: extremely transmissible, and relatively benign. So far it seems like omicron could be that, but I haven’t actually seen good data on mortality yet. If anybody has good mortality data I would love to see it.

grover35 5y ago
It's literally the most statistically dangerous disease of all time and it disproportionately affects BIPOC communities and undocumented workers.
- clircle 5y ago
  Please define 'statistically dangerous'. I'd much rather have Covid/Omicron than Ebola.
  - grover35 5y ago
    It kills the most people weighted by net worth.
- bigbluedots 5y ago
  Are the workers safe once they get their documents or something?
  - emerged 5y ago
    The implication seems to be that they become intrinsically less valuable as people when they get their documents.
- shepherdjerred 5y ago
  Any citations for your first point?
darkerside 5y ago
I would also love to see this. I fear that we're not bringing a first principles approach to Omicron. It's different enough that I don't think we can apply many findings from previous strains. Is fomite transmission still rare? Asymptomatic spread still happening? By the same token, does infection with omicron have any impact on your likelihood to catch Delta or other variants? The inverse appears to be vanishingly small.
finolex1 5y ago
General consensus seems to suggest it is less severe to some degree: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YBB9yZNJuz5j8hLdP/omicron-post-9 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YBB9yZNJuz5j8hLdP/omicron-po... The problem is that there's so many factors to isolate (testing rates, vaccination rates, behavior changes, demographics of the infected population, etc.) that it is hard to get a precise number yet. Of course, even if it's less severe, it's also more infectious which could make overall outcomes worse.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Also take into account the average hospital duration. Days suggests 2,5 days instead of 8,5 days and that gives a lot of wiggle room. Edit: it's not because of deaths...
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    Average hospital duration is a weird metric. It's easy to imagine 2 days being very good or very bad, depending on which door people left through.
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      South Africa recorded no deaths in the beginning solely to omicron. So that would have been the good door. ( That's where the stat came from)
mlyle 5y ago
> Is there any evidence that shows that omicron is even particularly dangerous? Looks like death rates are climbing in jurisdictions who were on the leading edge of the Omicron wave. If I had to guess, it's significantly better if infected than Delta, but still much worse than we're used to dealing with with influenza. > There has a been a “savior” strain that a lot of us have been hoping for which is: extremely transmissible, and relatively benign. This is only able to have any benefit to the extent that it also is strongly and durably protective against infection from other variants. I'm hopeful that things go much better this time around, both because vaccines are still somewhat protective and it looks somewhat less dangerous than Delta.
rsfern 5y ago
There is barely any solid data on hospitalization yet; the first batch of preprints with enough signal to start assessing intrinsic virulence vs prior immunity and other covariates were all posted like less than a week ago, out of South Africa, the UK, and Scotland. The lesswrong post in the sibling comment covers these pretty well I don’t think it’s been long enough that anyone will have reliable enough data to form a solid conclusion. The good news is that prior immunity seems to be very protective against severe outcomes, and that’s been clear for a bit
cplusplusfellow 5y ago
We are weeks into Omicron obsession and I’ve yet to see panic about the death rates. So you have reason to be optimistic, although I know plenty of people still yearning for this to be another round of horrors.
- spurgu 5y ago
  Yeah it's so weird. Once we had the vaccines the actual dangers vastly dropped but people still cling to their fears. I suppose the media drum desperately beating for clicks/views is not helping much with that.
  - conk 5y ago
    Maybe because not everyone has the option to get vaccinated yet.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
    My understanding is that there are still plenty of folks children that aren’t old enough to be vaccinated yet, and also millions of people are immunocompromised so I would expect they and all their relatives to make a ton of noise when it comes to the notion of living as normal, especially if there’s a variant that dodges vaccination effects to some degree… (To be clear I also wonder when it is time to return “to normal” but I disagree this is some kind of media propaganda. I think it’s too dismissive to assume there aren’t significant populations that have reasonable desires to continue to aim for mitigating policies like masking.)
    - nradov 5y ago
      The data has always been clear that there is no serious risk to healthy children. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
      - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
        That doesn’t necessarily mean any new parent is comfortable rolling the dice on being the exception. Parents often can and will do whatever they can to protect their child, even from low chances of danger (for example, screwing furniture to the wall because falling bookcases/dressers/etc have a low but easily preventable chance of tipping over and killing a child), especially if the thing is preventable.
dghughes 5y ago
Doesn't it go: influenza < SARS-CoV-2 < SARS-CoV-2 delta <= SARS-CoV-2 omicron? At least for how transmissible each is. The disease covid would depend on which variant you contract. Yes I know influenza isn't a corona virus. My point partly being we've become complacent at just how dangerous SARS-CoV-2 is and its variants are probably worse, but at the very least they're more transmissible. I think omicron is seen as less severe because so many people have had at least one shot of the vaccine. It's slamming anyone who is not vaccinated at all most ICUs are 75% un-vaccinated, the remaining two shot no booster, or two shots plus a booster, or two shots plus booster but elderly and sick. It's like MMR vaccine nobody is asking why doesn't everyone have measles, mumps, and rubella - because nearly everyone has been vaccinated for those.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Also the MMR vaccine actually works as a vaccine. It does not just reduce symptoms while allowing infection and transmission.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines seem to do all of these: they reduce infection; reduce chance of symptoms given infection; and reduces the chance of severe illness given symptoms. It's much less so for Omicron than for past variants. MMR is similarly effective at infection vs. mumps as the mRNA vaccines are against infection with pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2. Transmission is a harder question: if you prevent infection in a bunch of people, but also create more asymptomatic people who are likely to go out and about: which effect wins out?
- mlyle 5y ago
  > but at the very least they're more transmissible. The "more transmissible" may be partially confounded by novelty. E.g. what's influenza's R0 in an immunologically naive population? Who knows. Vaccination doesn't fully answer what the equilibrium transmissibility will be. either, because there's things like mucosal immunity. > I think omicron is seen as less severe because so many people have had at least one shot of the vaccine. So far the (weak) evidence we have points to both: - A somewhat lower severity of infection from omicron than delta regardless of vaccination status. - Moderate protection against severe disease from a 2 shot mRNA vaccine series, and pretty good protection against severe disease after a recent 3rd booster shot. So, that is, it's not one or the other, it's both: Omicron is probably less severe overall and has its severity reduced further by vaccination.
NicoJuicy 5y ago
Keep an eye on Denmark. After South Africa it's the country I keep my eye on. The UK had a high infection rate of Delta, so it's still mixed data there.
awb 5y ago
> There has a been a “savior” strain that a lot of us have been hoping for The critical piece for a “savior” strain would be granting immunity to other less-benign strains. It’s still very early on, but so far it doesn’t look like Omicron has that feature as people are reportedly contracting both Omicron and Delta: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29698080#29699001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29698080#29699001 Without providing protection against other strains, it’s just another transmissible disease in addition to what we had before.

by blhack 5y ago

grover35 5y ago

It's literally the most statistically dangerous disease of all time and it disproportionately affects BIPOC communities and undocumented workers.

clircle 5y ago
Please define 'statistically dangerous'. I'd much rather have Covid/Omicron than Ebola.
- grover35 5y ago
  It kills the most people weighted by net worth.
bigbluedots 5y ago
Are the workers safe once they get their documents or something?
- emerged 5y ago
  The implication seems to be that they become intrinsically less valuable as people when they get their documents.
shepherdjerred 5y ago
Any citations for your first point?

darkerside 5y ago

I would also love to see this. I fear that we're not bringing a first principles approach to Omicron. It's different enough that I don't think we can apply many findings from previous strains. Is fomite transmission still rare? Asymptomatic spread still happening? By the same token, does infection with omicron have any impact on your likelihood to catch Delta or other variants? The inverse appears to be vanishingly small.

finolex1 5y ago

General consensus seems to suggest it is less severe to some degree: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YBB9yZNJuz5j8hLdP/omicron-post-9 https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YBB9yZNJuz5j8hLdP/omicron-po... The problem is that there's so many factors to isolate (testing rates, vaccination rates, behavior changes, demographics of the infected population, etc.) that it is hard to get a precise number yet. Of course, even if it's less severe, it's also more infectious which could make overall outcomes worse.

NicoJuicy 5y ago
Also take into account the average hospital duration. Days suggests 2,5 days instead of 8,5 days and that gives a lot of wiggle room. Edit: it's not because of deaths...
- HWR_14 5y ago
  Average hospital duration is a weird metric. It's easy to imagine 2 days being very good or very bad, depending on which door people left through.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    South Africa recorded no deaths in the beginning solely to omicron. So that would have been the good door. ( That's where the stat came from)

mlyle 5y ago

> Is there any evidence that shows that omicron is even particularly dangerous? Looks like death rates are climbing in jurisdictions who were on the leading edge of the Omicron wave. If I had to guess, it's significantly better if infected than Delta, but still much worse than we're used to dealing with with influenza. > There has a been a “savior” strain that a lot of us have been hoping for which is: extremely transmissible, and relatively benign. This is only able to have any benefit to the extent that it also is strongly and durably protective against infection from other variants. I'm hopeful that things go much better this time around, both because vaccines are still somewhat protective and it looks somewhat less dangerous than Delta.

rsfern 5y ago

There is barely any solid data on hospitalization yet; the first batch of preprints with enough signal to start assessing intrinsic virulence vs prior immunity and other covariates were all posted like less than a week ago, out of South Africa, the UK, and Scotland. The lesswrong post in the sibling comment covers these pretty well I don’t think it’s been long enough that anyone will have reliable enough data to form a solid conclusion. The good news is that prior immunity seems to be very protective against severe outcomes, and that’s been clear for a bit

cplusplusfellow 5y ago

We are weeks into Omicron obsession and I’ve yet to see panic about the death rates. So you have reason to be optimistic, although I know plenty of people still yearning for this to be another round of horrors.

spurgu 5y ago
Yeah it's so weird. Once we had the vaccines the actual dangers vastly dropped but people still cling to their fears. I suppose the media drum desperately beating for clicks/views is not helping much with that.
- conk 5y ago
  Maybe because not everyone has the option to get vaccinated yet.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  My understanding is that there are still plenty of folks children that aren’t old enough to be vaccinated yet, and also millions of people are immunocompromised so I would expect they and all their relatives to make a ton of noise when it comes to the notion of living as normal, especially if there’s a variant that dodges vaccination effects to some degree… (To be clear I also wonder when it is time to return “to normal” but I disagree this is some kind of media propaganda. I think it’s too dismissive to assume there aren’t significant populations that have reasonable desires to continue to aim for mitigating policies like masking.)
  - nradov 5y ago
    The data has always been clear that there is no serious risk to healthy children. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burden.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
    - SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
      That doesn’t necessarily mean any new parent is comfortable rolling the dice on being the exception. Parents often can and will do whatever they can to protect their child, even from low chances of danger (for example, screwing furniture to the wall because falling bookcases/dressers/etc have a low but easily preventable chance of tipping over and killing a child), especially if the thing is preventable.

dghughes 5y ago

Doesn't it go: influenza < SARS-CoV-2 < SARS-CoV-2 delta <= SARS-CoV-2 omicron? At least for how transmissible each is. The disease covid would depend on which variant you contract. Yes I know influenza isn't a corona virus. My point partly being we've become complacent at just how dangerous SARS-CoV-2 is and its variants are probably worse, but at the very least they're more transmissible. I think omicron is seen as less severe because so many people have had at least one shot of the vaccine. It's slamming anyone who is not vaccinated at all most ICUs are 75% un-vaccinated, the remaining two shot no booster, or two shots plus a booster, or two shots plus booster but elderly and sick. It's like MMR vaccine nobody is asking why doesn't everyone have measles, mumps, and rubella - because nearly everyone has been vaccinated for those.

throwawayboise 5y ago
Also the MMR vaccine actually works as a vaccine. It does not just reduce symptoms while allowing infection and transmission.
- mlyle 5y ago
  The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines seem to do all of these: they reduce infection; reduce chance of symptoms given infection; and reduces the chance of severe illness given symptoms. It's much less so for Omicron than for past variants. MMR is similarly effective at infection vs. mumps as the mRNA vaccines are against infection with pre-Omicron SARS-CoV-2. Transmission is a harder question: if you prevent infection in a bunch of people, but also create more asymptomatic people who are likely to go out and about: which effect wins out?
mlyle 5y ago
> but at the very least they're more transmissible. The "more transmissible" may be partially confounded by novelty. E.g. what's influenza's R0 in an immunologically naive population? Who knows. Vaccination doesn't fully answer what the equilibrium transmissibility will be. either, because there's things like mucosal immunity. > I think omicron is seen as less severe because so many people have had at least one shot of the vaccine. So far the (weak) evidence we have points to both: - A somewhat lower severity of infection from omicron than delta regardless of vaccination status. - Moderate protection against severe disease from a 2 shot mRNA vaccine series, and pretty good protection against severe disease after a recent 3rd booster shot. So, that is, it's not one or the other, it's both: Omicron is probably less severe overall and has its severity reduced further by vaccination.

NicoJuicy 5y ago

Keep an eye on Denmark. After South Africa it's the country I keep my eye on. The UK had a high infection rate of Delta, so it's still mixed data there.

awb 5y ago

> There has a been a “savior” strain that a lot of us have been hoping for The critical piece for a “savior” strain would be granting immunity to other less-benign strains. It’s still very early on, but so far it doesn’t look like Omicron has that feature as people are reportedly contracting both Omicron and Delta: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29698080#29699001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29698080#29699001 Without providing protection against other strains, it’s just another transmissible disease in addition to what we had before.