More evidence a booster helps prevent you from catching Omicron. We knew that already from Pfizer but this study looks at risks within households, which is useful info as it provides an absolute rather than relative risk in a common situation
The chart ET posted is confusing, as it normalizes to the "fully vaxxed" state. Leaving aside the heterogeneity of this population (vaxxed at different times, and includes some unknown % with the less effective 1-shot J&J), normalizing to unvaxxed would be better. So I redid it.
As you can see the relative protection from intra-household infection for a boosted person is 48% for Omicron and 84% for Delta vs unvaxxed. 48% is lower than the 70% Pfizer measured, but that's expected for the higher-exposure household setting compared to community transmission
ET doesn't clarify, and the abstract doesn't say, whether the transmission reduction by boosting is when the primary case or the secondary case is boosted. The table legend specifies it's the secondary case, i.e. boosters in the household members protect them from getting it.
Really wish authors would make it clear, when they say vaccines block transmission, if they mean getting infected or transmitting onward. This has been a source of confusion regarding the role of vaccines in blocking spread for a long time.
Finally, the new useful number here is the absolute risk of becoming positive. That's 30% within 7d for Omicron, 20% for Delta. Out of 2225, only 105 (<5%) were boosted. Nice chart.
BTW it shows, contrary to CDC, spread continues after day 5.
You recall vaxxed unboosted are basically not protected against being infected by Omicron, so basically unvaxxed is ~30% likely to be infected by a household member within 7d, vaxxed unboosted is also ~30%, and boosted is ~15%.
So... if you don't want to get sick from your family member or roommate: 1. get boosted 2. avoid being in the same room when possible 3. wear a mask when in the same room when possible
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For a new year tried out a new mask, the 3M Aura N95 mask. Wow what a night and day difference. Didn't realize a mask could be this comfortable. Most amazing thing: speech comes through clearly.
My colleague @AbraarKaran is correct: CDC should be pushing better masks like these
These are $3 each and worth it. You can buy a 3pack (or 10pack) and rotate between them. On the 3 days off you let the mask air out to evaporate odors and let any viruses in them die off. More info on this thread.
Not only did HHS and CDC failed to push for mass manufacturing of these masks earlier (a problem since the previous administration when @RickABright was overruled on the matter) but CDC continued to push wrong or obsolete ideas about N95s
If we can avoid creating worse variants with molnupiravir, COVID19 can finally become like the flu in 2022.
1/n
The SA experience, mirrored in Western countries so far, suggests Omicron IFR is an order of magnitude lower than previous variants. This is due to preexisting immunity and lower virulence of Omicron.
Thanks Dr. Hildreth for speaking out on the dangers of molnupiravir to "the health of the world". We need more people with foresight and integrity like you and @RickABright speaking up
Peter Weina @peterweina, director of the Defense Health Agency, also voted against molnupiravir at the 11/30 AMDAC meeting out of concern for generating new variants. The meeting has been poorly covered in most articles, but here's a good one below
2020.03: Introducing the #coronadeck, explaining what we knew about SARSCoV2 based on its 80% identity to SARSCoV1. Discussed evidence for masks. This was back when CDC and WHO were saying they were ineffective.
2020.04: Wherein I appeared on CBC to advocate for mask wearing, because studies show it works to prevent viral infections. On the other side was a doctor following public health talking points, that masks were ineffective.
ICYMI, on 12/23, the last news day before a long holiday break, FDA approved the viral mutagen molnupiravir as an at-home COVID19 drug. It sounds worrisome because it is. I wrote in the @washingtonpost that immunoevasive variants could arise from its use. washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/1…
If molnupiravir gives rise to enhanced mutants of SARSCoV2, it will prolong the pandemic and cause countless deaths and needless suffering. Yet it's only 30% effective in preventing hospitalization, similar to generic antidepressant and far worse than the 89% of other antivirals.
FDA knew of the concerns about mutant viruses escaping from patients taking MOV. This was discussed at the AMDAC FDA advisors meeting 1 month ago and contributed to the 10 no votes. It was revealed Merck didn't know what mutations occur in patients and when viruses are cleared.
Would you prefer (1) we get back to normal activities sometime, or (2) we make new vaccine-evading coronaviruses continuously, suffer widespread breakthrough waves, and wear masks forever?
If you chose #1, then know this: Merck's molnupiravir should not be approved.
Molnupiravir is, to put it in clear terms, a potentially dangerous and virus-enhancing drug. It is not an effective antiviral medication outside of the confined conditions of cell culture and hamster cages. I'll explain below.
Well known independent voices have brought this up, such as @CT_Bergstrom (renowned skeptic of bad research) @WmHaseltine (HIV pioneer) and @JamesEKHildreth (FDA advisor). Others such as @chasewnelson have done more in-depth analysis. I'm here to try to explain the issue simply.