@b_chinnian5 Importantly, they said the vast majority of hospitalized cases were unvaccinated. But SA has a high rate of seroprevalance, >70% per some studies. So worst-case interpretation here is everyone hospitalized was either vaccinated or unvaccinated but previously infected.
Since most hospitalizations are unvaccinated, then the relative risk of death for vaccinated is already several times lower than for unvaccinated but maybe previously infected. Overall both groups have an average fatality rate of ~1/3 of previous waves.
So worst case:
• Unvaxxed infected IFR ~0.3% (assuming 1% for unvaxxed uninfected in previous waves, and similar hospitalization rate for Omicron)
• Vaxxed IFR several times lower (depends on ratio of unvaxxed to vaxxed in the hospitalized group)
Best-case scenario: Most hospitalized patients were immune-naive because those who got hospitalized tended to be those without prior immunity, in which case the lower death rate means Omicron is inherently less deadly as well.
Since it is true that many cases are being discovered in admits for other reasons, I should modify the statement in the first tweet that it's unlikely because of a larger denominator. It could be.
I think it's really the fact we're now weeks from the upswing and we haven't seen the same hosp rate as earlier waves at an equivalent time that suggests this wave is milder. Now this could be because >70% have some immunity, which would be similar to the US situation.
The data today are reassuring nevertheless, because it shows lower deaths across ages. Whether that's due inherently lower virulence or widespread immunity now, it means we can adjust SA's IFR by age alone, and don't need to worry that Omicron has a different age-severity fxn.
However we must remember omicron severity is still worse with age and other conditions, so countries with older age distributions or more unhealthy people will have higher overall deaths per capita from Omicron than SA even if they have similar % immunity.
Overview of cases vs hospitalizations. Always the caveat of now knowing how much underreporting of cases is occurring relatively between waves.
@johnklopfer points out they are counting all cases in the hospital regardless of when the cases were detected. As case #'s are going up, many recent cases will be counted before they have the time to lead to severe disease. This will lower the apparent hospitalization death rate
In addition, many are apparently detected as positive but were hospitalized for other reasons; so this also increases the denominator of "hospitalized COVID19 patients" (many are not there for COVID19)
However these data are useful in showing there isn't a different skew to death rates by age for Omicron vs earlier variants. This is important because SA *has* shown lower severe disease in this wave than previous waves, but we've been warned this could be an age-dependent effect
That is, SA is younger than other countries. So, if Omicron is only milder for younger people, then the ~50% reductions in hospitalizations seen this wave (and yes, accounting for delay) might not apply to other countries with older populations.
However the data in post 1 shows the same age distribution as in previous waves, suggesting Omicron is not selectively sparing younger people. So it's the historical hospitalization/rate data that implies lower severity, and the deaths by age data argues it's not age-specific.
Even better would be historical case, hosp, and death curves broken down by age so we can confirm this. Not sure if SA hospitals report hospitalizations by age.
Here's some data that suggests ~90% of hospitalized cases with COVID19 in Gauteng province were indeed admitted for COVID19, so the contribution of mild/asymptomatic incidental COVID19 diagnoses to the "hospitalized COVID19" population appears minor.
It's a bit odd when people warn SA is not representative of Western countries due to high seroprevalence >70%. Most Western countries are at the same from vaccination >60% and prev infection >25%. No linkage gives sero+ >70%. If no vax linked to prev infection, then even higher.
As long-term followers know, I tend to be more pessimistic than authorities and to call for more stringent measures (masks, boosters). For example in June I insisted there would be a Delta wave although some famous tweeters had already concluded not
With Omicron I feel like I'm going out on a limb in the other direction for the first time. This wave resulting in fewer deaths per case than earlier ones seems the most parsimonious prediction from findings so far.
It's also what we'd predict from our existing immunity levels and omicron evasiveness: when you have something that creates a high rate of breakthru cases but 80% of popn has some immunity, then you expect a low death/case ratio.
We are still seeing a bump in hospitalizations and waves for sure, but I predict their numbers will be significantly lower per case than earlier waves in the US and Europe, because there are much fewer immune-native to infect, and many more with immunity to get breakthroughs in
The point is, replying to warnings not to divide today's hosp # with today's case #: Yes, I am very aware, and this was an error others made in the past, so it's good we're learning. But my analysis here, as before, accounts for a 2-wk delay between cases and hospitalizations
We're also seeing a low hosp/case rate in Denmark even with the proper 2 week wait for hospitalizations after cases. They've had Omicron for a month now. 2 weeks ago there were 7000 daily new cases, and today 15 new hospitalizations irishtimes.com/news/health/ea…
Very important study from SA comparing hospitalization rates in the current wave between omicron and non-omicron COVID19 cases. Omicron cases have 80% reduced hospitalization risk. It's controlled for time & demographics so suggests inherent lower severity medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Since vast majority of cases now are Omicron, that 80% reduction in risk of hospitalization compared to non-Omicron (presumably Delta) would easily explain the >50% lower hospitalization/case ratios in the current wave compared to the Delta wave.
Incidentally they also find that once hospitalized, Omicron cases have similar outcomes as non-Omicron cases. They attribute this to prev immunity helping both types of cases to get the same outcomes, as these outcomes are less severe than previous waves for non-Omicron too
I spent 2020 debunking all these right-wing excuses for why COVID19 won't hit the US so badly because of different demographics habits diets genetics etc. Ironic now how people are grasping at similar straws to argue we have no evidence the Omicron wave will be less severe
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Novavax beats Moderna, which (transiently) induces higher levels of neutralizing Abs. As I've said before, Abs are much more than neutralization. Ab effector functions do most of the clearing, and Novavax seems particularly good at that.
And this is in the 2-dose Phase 3 trials, before the 3rd "booster" dose that, in RNA vaccines but not Novavax, induces antibody (immunoglobulin) class-switching to the no-effector-function IgG4
I made this graphic to show how different vaccine types work (back in 2021).
We can just look at line 1 (protein vax like Novavax) and line 3 (RNA vax).
In protein vax, antigen-presenting cells take up the antigen to activate B cells and Thelper cells....
In RNA vax, your muscles cells take up RNA and translate it into antigen. This process tends to be a bit inflammatory (apparently that's inherent to RNA uptake) so some cells die and release proteins that are also taken up by antigen-presenting cells.
Basically Pelosi figured out Donilon was the one feeding Biden hopium-spiked poll results, and leaked it out.
Once it was proven that there really was bad info in the inner circle, that gave everyone else confidence in their own eyes. The emperor really was naked.
“Put Donilon on the phone,” Ms. Pelosi told the president, referring to Mike Donilon, the president’s longtime aide, according to people familiar with the exchange, which was reported earlier by CNN. “Show me what polls.”
Biden has COVID-19 again. He had first symptoms today, positive test today, and first Paxlovid dose today.
As the early Paxlovid will limit immunostimulation by virus, I predict he will suffer rebound again, unless he gets 10-day course, or he is given a strain-matched vaccine.
Biden's DO does not seem to follow the science. The rate of rebound is 26% if started within the first 2 days of symptoms or positive test.
Sure, FDA and CDC and Pfizer still claim it's less than 3% and no different than no-Paxlovid, but it fools nobody
I predicted his first rebound on immunological principles alone and on understanding Paxlovid mechanism of action. It was a real prediction, made before it happened, and sticking my neck out in public to make it.
I intuited that early start of Paxlovid blunts immunity, allowing viral rebound once drug ended. I thus predicted both Joe and Jill Biden's rebounds (before they occurred), as they started Pax on day of symptoms.
"The model identifies that earlier initiation and shorter treatment duration are key predictors of post-treatment rebound."
The model shows that early therapy reduces the number of infected cells secreting innate immune signals (IFNs) that then activate antibody production.
"If the virus is not eliminated by an early acquired response along with antiviral pressure, it rebounds to a peak level that is sometimes comparable to the initial peak."
We have seen this with many people, e.g. Fauci reported the rebound was worse than the initial infection