This is a really brilliant representation of Denmark’s RSV admissions data. It shows what I’ve been trying to explain for a while now. Delaying RSV exposure is *good*. The babies born in the 20/21 “gap year” experienced a net *benefit* by dodging RSV en masse as infants. 1/ Bar graph from the QT with an arrow showing the difference i
Not exposing infants that season resulted in a net decrease of total RSV hospitalizations for that cohort over time. This is consistent with what we’ve known for decades which is that RSV is most dangerous for 0-12 month olds and there’s a net benefit to delaying exposure. 2/ Bar graph from the QT with an arrow showing the difference i
In other words:
- no immunity debt — no increased risk of hosp from delayed exposure

- some immunity gap — many went on to be hospitalized in 21/22 at 12-24 months and 22/23 at 24-36 months, but not all

- we see evidence of some immunity *CREDIT* — averted hospitalizations
3/ Bar graph from the QT with an arrow showing the difference i
So there you have it. There’s no benefit to exposing infants to RSV. The cohort of kids that were infants the year that RSV stopped circulating went on to have a lower total number RSV hospitalizations. We didn’t just delay the inevitable. We *prevented* hospitalizations. 4/ Bar graph from the QT with an arrow showing the difference i
And now with that in mind, how do we explain why the 21/22 and 22/23 babies have been hospitalized for RSV in their first RSV season as infants (0-12 months) at much higher rates than the cohorts that came before them? Neither immunity debt nor immunity gap can explain this. 5/ Graph from the QT with lines showing that the 21/22 and 22/2
Any MD w an ounce of integrity would say the #1 suspect for increased susceptibility of infants to severe RSV in the pandemic era is covid. Whether it’s immune dysfunction or lung dysfunction or something else, SARS2 is the most likely reason that these babies are different. /6 Graph from the QT with lines showing that the 21/22 and 22/2
Alright so I’m circling back to this because it seems that some people still don’t understand what this data shows.

The X axis of this graph is *cohorts of babies*, not years. The cohorts are divided up based on first RSV season as infants. Graph from the lead tweet with notes added:  The X axis is cGraph from the lead tweet showing the increase in RSV admiss
The bars show the ages at which the kids in each cohort ended up in the hospital with RSV. The years they were admitted are NOT on the graph! This is cumulative RSV admissions by cohort + their age on admission.

The unexposed gap year babies have the *lowest* cumulative total. Graph from the lead tweet with notes added:  The X axis is c
Here I’ve added the years they were admitted to the graph. @jmcrookston also did a good job breaking it down in his tweet.
Graph from the lead tweet with notes and year of admission a
Ok so here’s the smoking gun: the double cohort

So the “immunity gap” or “double cohort” effect stipulates that the increase in admissions during the rebound RSV epidemic is a game of catch up where the gap year 20/21 cohort and the 21/22 cohort are all exposed at the same time.
Look again. The 2020/21 cohort and the 2021/22 cohort were exposed to the same 2 RSV seasons: 2021/22 and this year 2022/23. If this was just a game of catch up, of inevitability of RSV admissions, then these 2 cohorts should have the same cumulative total. They don’t. Graph from the lead tweet with notes and year of admission a
Not only do the 20/21 cohort and 21/22 cohort not have the same cumulative total despite being exposed to the same 2 RSV seasons, what we see is a protective effect of the gap year for the 20/21 kids (lower total RSV admissions) and *excess RSV admissions* for the 21/22 cohort!! Graph from the lead tweet with notes and year of admission a
Basically, not exposing the 20/21 cohort to RSV as infants prevented many hospitalizations. Not being exposed to RSV early was a net positive for these kids. And we see that the subsequent cohorts (21/22 and 22/23 babies) have an increased susceptibility to severe RSV. Graph from the lead tweet with notes and year of admission aGraph from the lead tweet showing the increase in RSV admiss
In case it’s still not clear, @BarclayBenedict provided a second way to visualize the cumulative RSV admissions data by cohort here, that I also annotated for you to highlight the prepandemic average vs the 20/21 gap year kids and the 21/22 + 22/23 babies.
Graph from the quote tweet annotated to highlight the increa
Again, we can clearly see that there are less cumulative RSV admissions for the gap year kids (getting rid of RSV during their infancy prevented many of them from being hospitalized!) and excess RSV admissions for kids exposed to RSV in infancy in the pandemic era. Same graph as previous tweet + Additional notes at the botto
So what’s not behind the rise in RSV hospitalizations (and the peds crisis):

- immunity debt✖️
nope, non-exposure in infancy was an advantage

- cohort effect alone✖️
total hospitalizations are lower for the non-exposed cohort and higher than expected for the subsequent cohorts
So what is behind the rise in RSV hospitalizations (and the peds crisis)?

Increased susceptibility to severe RSV for kids born in 2021/2022 and the current 2022/23 infant cohort. Same graph again from the QT further up annotated to highligGraph from the lead tweet showing the increase in RSV admiss
I don’t know exactly what made these babies more susceptible to severe RSV infections but as I’ve pointed out before, we need to be looking at the role of covid infections in utero on outcomes in infancy. Don’t @ me w claims of “generational immunity debt”. Read this 🧵 instead:
And then follow it up with this 🧵
There’s lots of evidence that covid + pregnancy = badness. And these studies were pre-vaccine (sorry antivaxxers). We know now that in general the vaccines are good at lowering the odds of covid-related badness but are only partially protective.
Let me put it this way, if SARS2 was a new drug given in pregnancy and we saw these outcomes in infants in the years following its introduction, it would have been pulled from the shelves already. Normally, we would be quick on the trigger to protect pregnant women and infants.
But nothing about the current era is normal anymore is it?
Further reading. “Immunity debt” and “immunity gap” don’t explain the increased susceptibility of 45+ year olds to severe RSV either.👇🏻
And a thread on the 2 RSV waves in Denmark since the 1 missed RSV season 2 years ago. Compared to the rebound season in 2021/22 last year, there’s less RSV and more admissions per cases this year. Thank you for sharing all of this very informative data @BarclayBenedict.

• • •

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

Keep Current with Dr. Lisa Iannattone

Dr. Lisa Iannattone 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 @lisa_iannattone

Nov 27
While not perfect, rapid antigen test positivity correlates well with culture positivity (unlike PCR). Since we can’t do daily cultures, assuming you’re still contagious if you’re still testing positive on RAT is the best method we’ve got to avoid spreading SARS2 to each other.
If you don’t have access to enough RATs to test daily, the method we used back in the days when we did contact tracing & isolation still stands: assume you’re contagious until day 10 (inclusive) *and* your symptoms have resolved (other than anosmia or coughing which can linger).
Also the day that your symptoms started is day 0, not day 1. This is a really common mistake ppl make because it was never explained well.

Also, while we’re here, a proper RAT = swab your throat and then your nostrils. Swabbing nose only gives too many false negatives.
Read 6 tweets
Nov 19
Political appointees with no regulatory oversight. The colleges do not review complaints made about them which results in a troubling situation that allows them to wield their MD credentials in service of politicians with impunity.
We need systemic change. The public health system is broken in Canada. It should be completely, 1000% independent of politics. Frankly it should be illegal for politicians to meddle in matters of public health and influence PH recommendations and reports.
I’m sure that’ll be in the SARS2 Commission’s report one day and I’m sure politicians will ignore it just like they ignored all the recommendations that were in the SARS1 Commission’s report.
Read 10 tweets
Nov 19
Since there’s so much speculation out there about what could possibly be different about pregnancies in the aftertimes, let’s not forget to mention the elephant in the room: covid can infect placentas and cause them to clot. 🐘 Comparison of a normal placenta and a covid placenta.
And in this study, babies born to mothers that were infected with covid while pregnant were born with smaller lung volume than normal.
And in this study, several babies who’s mothers were infected with covid while pregnant secreted SARS2 in their stool after they were born, demonstrating that they were infected in the womb and suggesting that they developed a persistent viral reservoir in their gut.
Read 7 tweets
Nov 17
It's not just m*sks, it's the refusal to do *anything* pro-active that's shocking. A country that's out of peds hosp/ICU beds and CARES would:
-give RSV monoclonals to ALL infants <12 months
-vaccinate ALL kids for flu
-ramp up efforts ++ to increase covid vaxx rates in under 5s
We have so many tools to fight the "three headed monster" but we're leaving it all on the table. Even the pharmaceutical tools like vaccines and monoclonal antibodies that have been a favorite of the 2022 PH "we have the tools" era. I don't understand. Make it make sense.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 17
It’s so strange to see public health officials and institutions adopt libertarian phrases. “Wearing a mask is a personal choice” is political phrasing. That’s not a sentence that would ever be used in public health messaging normally. “Brushing your teeth is a personal choice.”
I mean sure, brushing your teeth or wearing sunscreen is a personal choice but that would never be the way that PH chooses to present information.
“Brushing your teeth prevents cavities.”
“Wearing sunscreen prevents skin cancer.”
“Wearing a mask prevents respiratory infections.”
The “personal choice” language is really a sign of how politically captured our public health institutions are.
Read 4 tweets
Nov 16
We’re almost 3 years in. Those who continue to claim “masks are harmful for the development/mental health of children” owe us concrete evidence. Enough is enough.
Friendly reminder that when Quebec decided to remove universal masking in schools last year, they lied about having received evidence of harm from experts. Those experts quickly came out to clarify that they told them there was NO evidence of harm.
Just stop and think about that for a second. They went specifically fishing for cherry-picked data to support a predetermined conclusion (they call that decision based evidence making) and **couldn’t find any**. They had to resort to lying about what their experts had told them.
Read 6 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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!

:(