Myth debunking:
After reading more misleading takes in the media, I'm going to try to explain this again- overall, omicron causes *more* and not less severe disease than delta - even at an individual level for most people. Why? 🧵
Your risk of getting hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 (any variant) depends on two things? 1. how likely are you to get infected? 2. what is your chance of getting hospitalised *once infected*
In simple terms, because omicron can escape immunity from past infections and vaccines, your protection against infection against omicron is vastly lower than with delta. This means risk of 1. is vastly increased- as you're less protected & also v. high background transmission.
This risk would've been *much* lower with delta, as your chance of getting infected if vaccinated would've been much lower. You protection *once infected* (number 2. above) doesn't change much. But overall because 1. is hugely reduced, your total risk is actually higher.
All the 'mild' takes compare omicron hospitalisations *once* infected, without accounting for the fact that omicron is infected people who're vaccinated and had past infection who wouldn't have been infected with delta at all because they were protected.
So, it's increasing risk, rather than reducing it, by infection people who wouldn't have been infected with delta- which means we are actually at higher risk of severe disease - because of lower protection from infection with vaccination with omicron compared to delta.
Remember, a huge part of the omicron advantage is being able to infect people with previous immunity that delta wouldn't have been able to penetrate. To argue that this somehow leads to a reduction in risk, is frankly nuts.
So be wary of 'conditional takes' - that discuss risk of hospitalisation *once infected* because they don't account for the risk of infection which is hugely increased, and overall risk individually depends on both.
And also on takes that don't acknowledge that omicron is infecting people who wouldn't have been infected by delta- many with prior immunity so with protection from severe disease- but still be more likely to get ill overall because delta wouldn't have infected them at all.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Nonsense- had we let infection spread to let 'immunity build in the population' hundreds of thousands of people would've died, much before getting a chance to be vaccinated! It's your constant campaigning against migitations that have led to policies that led us into lockdown.
The John Snow Memo exposed GBD as dangerous pseudoscience - it's time to admit this and apologise because you and others got it so badly wrong, but have continued to advocate for policies that have harmed both public health & economy.
Who are these 'lockdowners'? Certainly not those who've been asking for airborne precautions and good public health strategies throughout the pandemic. It's the people who've advocated for letting infection spread, which led to crises then requiring lockdowns.
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.
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.
🧵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.