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.
Omicron is able to go where delta wasn't able to efficiently- it's able to infect vaccinated people, people with prior infection more efficiently than delta due to escape. While protection from severe disease *if infected* still holds, relative chance of infection is higher.
As @_nickdavies points out here, this is worrying -it means it can infiltrate part of the wall we've created with vaccines particularly for vulnerable groups- the growth we're seeing is because it's ability to escape prior immunity more compared to delta.
Omicron infections will be disproportionately higher *relative to delta* in those who are boosted/vaccinated/and previously infected. While protection against hosp with vaccines if infected holds, these groups are now more likely to be infected, so overall protection still lower.
Small reductions in protection against severe disease (protection from infection and then hosp) can translate to large differences at population level - especially in vulnerable groups where vaccines will now provide overall lower protection.
So, multilayered mitigations, and limiting socialisation over Christmas is still vitally important.
The 'mild narratives' don't really reflect the real complexity of how omicron is spreading - the very different profile of spread needs to be considered to understand full impact, and the rate of spread. And escape, a major advantage of omicron is a key problem here.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On BBC London just now challenging the 'mild' narratives. Takeaway: please stop blaming the scientific community for changing narratives in the media! That's down to media (assisted by some scientists with a track record of minimisation).
From 17:12 bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/li…
Omicron is a serious threat- it was before & it is now. As we get more information, we will be able to refine the level of threat more, but the data from yesterday doesn't at all mean that it's not a serious threat!!! If media has portrayed it that way, that's on them.
I'm actually really frustrated by the media rhetoric targeting scientists, and suggesting the public are frustrated with scientists for changing narratives and evidence. Evidence will change, but the way it's been portrayed in media does create whiplash, because it's misleading!
Some brief thoughts on the concerning relativism I've seen creeping into media, and scientific rhetoric over the past 20 months or so - the idea that things are ok because they're better *relative to* a point where things got really really bad. 🧵
Many pointed to summer in the UK saying it was a success because 'freedom day' didn't translate to anything like Jan 21 or March '20. No it didn't, but >18000 people died since (many deaths may have been avoided with simple measures like mask mandates, mitigations in schools)
And of course we have 1.2 million with long COVID with children seeing a doubling in 4 months. But all this is okay, because it's not as bad as Jan, or March last year. When the pandemic hit in March, we were thoroughly unprepared.
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.
🧵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.
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/
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.