An important study- it suggests that Omicron has a much greater growth advantage among the vaccinated, and previously infected, and possibly a lower growth advantage compared to delta among those who were susceptible (not vaccinated/infected or waning of immunity)
This doesn't mean vaccines are not effective. It means that among the vaccinated and previously infected, omicron has a higher advantage compared to delta because it has higher escape from immunity (although both have lower infective probability compared to unvaccinated)
It's possible that intrinsic transmissibility of omicron relative to delta (apart from escape) may not be much higher, or possibly even slightly lower. But it would still have a massive advantage among those with prior immunity through vaccines/infection.
It might also explain why omicron hasn't rapidly replaced delta, and they appear to be co-circulating in what appears to be potentially different immunological compartments.
The lower representation of omicron in young children is similar to reports from Denmark- time will tell whether this is because of higher spread in young travellers early on (so not spread to this group yet), or because of a lower growth advantage due to lack of prior immunity.
Just to clarify, this wouldn't necessarily be a good thing- because it means we may have two variants occupying quite different immunological compartments so that prior exposure against one doesn't protect against the other and vice versa. Herd immunity becomes a distant dream.
It means that the two variants may be able to co-circulate for longer periods than otherwise, and those infected with one may be susceptible to the other over time.
Multilayered measures will of course work against both- so high quality well fitting masks, ventilation, limiting social contact + vaccination + boosters all very important.
It means we live with the worst of both worlds- high intrinsic transmissibility lower escape (delta) which hits the more susceptible or when immunity wanes, and moderate-high intrinsic transmissibility & high escape (omicron) which grows among those with prior infection/vaccines.
It means we live with the worst of both worlds- high intrinsic transmissibility lower escape (delta) which hits the more susceptible or when immunity wanes, and moderate-high intrinsic transmissibility & high escape (omicron) which grows among those with prior infection/vaccines.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Deepti Gurdasani

Deepti Gurdasani Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dgurdasani1

23 Dec
Just a quick note- if you're comparing hospitalisations currently with Jan levels and saying - 'NHS not overwhelmed because they're lower', that's not a reflection of reality. The NHS has way less slack in the system than it had in Jan. It's already overwhelmed. 🧵
We can't keep comparing with Jan peak, and going 'if it doesn't get that far, it's fine' when people can't get timely emergency care now. Not having routine care available fore millions of people for 2 years means there is a lot more burden on emergency services than there was.
Short term thinking and putting the NHS repeatedly under overwhelming pressure over the last few years has massively reduced resilience in the system. And many more people need emergency care due to lack of routine care over the past two years - not just COVID-19.
Read 7 tweets
23 Dec
Wanted to say - although the Imperial paper shows protection from hospitalisation *if infected* remains comparable between omicron and delta, the protection *from infection* is vastly reduced. This will mean overall reduction in efficacy against hosp with omicron.🧵
To explain further - vaccine efficacy against hospitalisation is two components:
- protection against infection
-protection against hospitalisation *if infected*
The Imperial study suggests that while the latter isn't affected much (70-80% protection with 2 doses, boosters) *if infected*, your protection from infection is really reduced with omicron. This means *overall* protection from hosp is lower.
Read 9 tweets
22 Dec
🧵on the Imperial study on omicron severity TL;DR:
-*intrinsic* omicron severity similar/bit lower to delta
-*observed* severity lower due to omicron more likely to re-infect
-vaccine efficacy against hosps maintained
-growth rate likely to override impact of lower severity
Before I get into the rest, I want to re-emphasise that the overall impact of omicron will be determined by growth (exponential) and severity (linear)- even with lower severity, growth in itself will cause serious impact at population level, even if severity is moderately lower.
The Imperial study is a complex piece of analysis, and I have to commend the Imperial team for dealing with important confounders in the analysis.

I want to first explain this a bit more.
Read 32 tweets
22 Dec
A thread slightly borne out of frustration on the widely misrepresented discourse on long COVID, esp in children. This is for the 'long COVID studies in children with controls are rigorous and loads of controls have symptoms so not sure this syndrome is real or important' group🧵
First, controls per se *do not* make a study sound - How do you account for the fact that children are often asymptomatic acutely, serorevert quickly or don't seroconvert at all. Long COVID itself is associated with lower Ab levels, furthering this bias.
Rigorous science is v. important, but let's not pretend that studies are rigorous because they have controls (just like people pretend RCTs are superior to observational evidence by virtue of being RCTs, even if they're conducted badly).
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34273064/
Read 31 tweets
21 Dec
I honestly cannot believe that we're living in a country where our govt is acting against scientific advice once again, and delaying action on rapid exponential growth, fully aware of the consequences- for the fourth time- a stance normalised by a complicit media.🧵
With a rapidly growing new variant doubling every 2 days, increasing hospitalisations already in London, which is ahead in terms of spread. The lags between infection and hospitalisation haven't happened yet, so this situation will only get worse.
We're seeing the highest hospitalisation rates with COVID-19 we've ever seen in 0-5 year olds, and rising.
Read 19 tweets
20 Dec
Wrong. SPI-M-O modelling has a lot of uncertainty because of many unknowns which are clearly acknowledged. Saying we didn't have 200K deaths last yr (um... because govt responded with lockdowns!) is disingenous & misleading.🧵
SAGE modelling has predicted outcomes within their range of uncertainty more often than not. And they're very clear about the uncertainties. If you don't know this perhaps try listening to experts who have followed it closely.
Even where the predictions haven't been exactly in the range, the general direction of movement, and policies advocated for have been sound. E.g. not removing mask mandates over summer would've saved lives and prevented a lot of long COVID even if cases didn't reach massive highs
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(