There is absolutely no evidence for this variant being less pathogenic. It is quite likely that the milder outcomes observed with this variant so far are because of immunity generated by vaccines and prior infections.
The idea that this will make vaccines less essential is a fantasy.
Good news, selection pressure is for more-contagious and less-deadly. It will happen eventually, and then covid will be just another common cold.
What selection pressure exists to make it less-deadly? It takes weeks for the virus to kill people and they are most infectious early on.
This is why island populations all get sick when a ship comes in.
But to the other commenter's point, if omicron DID get a more deadly variant that kills you after you've already infected other people due to presymptomatic spread, then why would that variant be likely to die out? It's already reproduced before killing the host
A disease that spreads before it's symptomatic may not face negative selection pressure for some individuals, but on the aggregate people wear masks, avoid contact, even entered lockdowns, are more likely to obtain vaccination, and so on.
There's a stronger behavioral response to a more deadly covid than there is to one that is entirely harmless. It's not just death that reduces rates of transmission, and it's not just sick or symptomatic people who avoid contact.
You know that Smallpox was in cows (aka: Cowpox), right? We still wiped it out.
Smallpox, Measles, Polio. We've wiped out diseases before, and we can do it again if we so try. I'm frankly more flabbergasted that people don't even know the history of diseases and are so pessimistic about this subject...
It seems unlikely that many cows caught smallpox, given the prevalence of cowpox. Cowpox is a different disease, and was the first vaccine, after which the very concept of "vaccination" is named. Milkmaids had long been known for their immunity to smallpox. If smallpox had been in cows, milkmaids would have been known for universal smallpox exposure instead.
> I'm frankly more flabbergasted that people don't even know the history of diseases
Not a good look.
That conferred immunity to smallpox. Which makes it about as "different" as Omicron is to Delta or COVID19.
In any case, Cowpox is case-positive proof of animal reservoirs of smallpox.
Sure, that's fair.
> In any case, Cowpox is case-positive proof of animal reservoirs of smallpox.
Huh? No, it isn't.
UK eradicated Rabies. I'm pretty sure we all agree Rabies has substantial animal reservoirs, right?
So... small, mostly deforested island countries may have a good chance against animal-borne viruses that have inexpensive edible vaccines.
The wealthiest country in the world hasn't managed to eradicate rabies. Covid isn't going to end this way.
There's a lot of diseases we've eradicated. Surely something will come along that you don't have an excuse for.
Leprosy is bacterial and treated with antibiotics. Same with bubonic plague, if that was next on your list.
I believe COVID19 continues because we have a ~60% vaccination rate in the USA, which is far below the needed vaccination rate to slow down the spread of the disease.
A lot of these other diseases brought up have substantial 95%+ vaccination rates, or treatments that can hamper the spread.
No disease is equivalent to another. Smallpox and Measles had much higher spread R0 / replication rates. Others are bacterial. Cholera is water-borne and solved with other methodologies.
Efficacy dropped to 60% vs Delta, and drops again to 30% vs Omicron. Boosters seem to rise back up to 90% vs Delta and 75% vs Omicron.
That's why so many people are talking about boosters: it has a measurable impact on transmission for Omicron (and Delta).
Also, IIRC Sinovac’s Coronavirus vaccine is an “old style” inactivated virus vaccine, and the J&J one is an adenovirus vector vaccine. They are not as effective as the mRNA vaccines.
Measles is 3x more infectious than even Delta.
Current vaccines are 95% effective against the original strain, 60% vs Delta, unknown vs Omicron.
You boost the vaccine however, and you're back to 90% efficacy vs Delta, and like 75% vs Omicron.
Its all about R0. If the efficacy (and compliance) is above the 1 / R0 rate, then eradication is possible.
As its "efficacy times compliance", the number we wish to maximize is the smaller number. Efficacy may have dropped to 60% (double shot vs Delta), but a 3rd booster brings the efficacy back up to 90%.
Compliance however, is stuck around 60% in the USA in general, and a large number of people are refusing to get the booster. As such, compliance is the number we need to work on right now.
--------
Going from 90% to 99% vaccine efficacy barely does anything, because our vaccine compliance numbers are so damn low.
It's not a problem in any area with high vaccine compliance.
If left alone, yes. We are not leaving it alone.
The selection pressure that sometimes selects for weaker viral variants is stronger viral variants killing their hosts in droves, thus preventing the stronger variants from passing on their genetics to new hosts.
That selection pressure doesn't exist, because people are not dropping like flies due to COVID. The virus is free to mutate into something stronger because there is little pressure to stop it.
In humans, viruses typically evolve to be less severe and more infectious over time.
There's significant evidence that omicron is less severe. At some point we should see an equilibrium reached with the coronaviruses, and the hope is that it'll be as mild as seasonal colds. Omicron could be a significant leap in that direction.
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-hea...
There isn't consensus in the scientific community about that.
Counterexamples: polio, rabies, avian flu in human hosts, Black Death.
It isn't clear what category COVID19 will end up in.
Feel free to provide an example virus if you think I'm wrong!
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/11/26/1413339111?wit...
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200918-why-some-deadly-...
https://journals.asm.org/doi/full/10.1128/JVI.00694-10
Covid related links have saturated any searches on viruses in general, and the doom&gloom "reporting"is at the top. There are a lot of papers and examples of what I'm talking about, though, it's just irritating to get at.
Gain of function research gives us rapid and repeatable demonstrations of vital evolution. Viruses that don't kill their hosts and develop more and better mechanisms of infection or evasion of immune system defenses outcompete other variants. There are a lot of examples in animal viruses, but Sars and hiv are examples of recent relevance.
To be clear, I'm not making the claim that this happens to all viruses - evolution doesn't work like that. A virus that leaves you mostly functional for a few months before it kills you is not at all an unlikely scenario. Viruses also exist concurrent with other variants, and they can mutate rapidly. There's no hard and fast rule, just influences and constraints that can manifest as trends.
In my opinion, the ideal outcome for sars-cov2 at this point is that a super mild variant evolves that will confer robust natural immunity while spreading fast enough to prevent the spread of other variants. It could become more deadly - I hope it won't, and what we know of virus evolutionary pressures in humans hints that we could get lucky.
Indeed it would be nice if a less severe strain out competed current COVID, but such a thing has never happened before (as far as we know) - and as you point out there is no selection pressure for mildness when death/disability occurs some weeks after the infection has been cleared.
- Pathogenicity: Virtually no hospitalizations or deaths. There's only one reported death so far "with" Omicron, about which there are absolutely no details released whatsoever and which was rather suspiciously announced by the UK PM just before a vote.
- Pathogenicity: all reports from SA say the symptoms are not only extremely mild, but don't actually match COVID symptoms at all. The first person to get it thought they'd simply been in the sun too long. Muscle aches, a slight headache, etc. Basically common cold symptoms.
- Irrelevance of vaccines: in Denmark the percentage of Omicron cases that are vaccinated is the same as the overall vaccination rate, i.e. there's ~no impact of vaccines.
There's really two ways to look at this. One is that the vaccine programme has now completely failed, but it doesn't matter because new COVID is mild.
The other is that really, Omicron isn't a COVID-causing virus at all, and that this marks the end of COVID. Because:
1. The symptoms are different. Different symptoms = different disease.
2. The severity is different. Both are mild but Omicron appears to be super mild. What it creates can barely be classed as a "disease" at all.
3. The virus is different. Much more heavily mutated than any other variant so far, in fact, so much so that some of the DRASTIC people are starting to suspect it may be another lab leak. Unfortunately, there have been scientists doing GoF research on SARS-CoV-2, their papers are public to view.
I think in a properly functioning and rational health system, it would be very hard to describe this new variant as COVID. Based on the evidence and reports so far it would be more rational to describe it as a common cold virus, of the type that occur every year.
You mean succeeded? As in, prevented many people from dying, and forced the virus to mutate into Omicron, which is far less dangerous.
As for the vaccines forcing mutation, SA is only 25% vaccinated so that doesn't work.
Have the vaccines succeeded in preventing many people from dying? That is something for history to judge. There just isn't good enough data on vaccine deaths to judge that at the moment. The problem for COVID vaccines is that whilst they may some people from dying of COVID, not many life years are saved because almost all the COVID deaths are concentrated in the very elderly. Meanwhile vaccine injuries are a looming iceberg because they aren't being properly tracked or recorded. The number of random cardiac failures in athletes is well up this year and eventually people will stop being in denial about the reasons. The long term damage from this programme can be judged in five or ten years.
However, if Omicron does display Delta as it appears to be doing very rapidly, we can say that at most the vaccines were useful for maybe 6-8 months. Bearing in mind you aren't "vaccinated" until your second dose and there's a gap.
Please don't post this nonsense on HN. There's ample evidence for vaccines saving the lives of millions.
I would love to go through and debunk them all, but I don't have the time or the crayons, nor would I think it would be effective in changing your beliefs. You're too far gone.
It's disappointing to see complete lies like this on HN. Vaccines have been, and remain, incredibly effective in preventing hospitalization/death, even without a booster (although everyone should also get their booster).
It's not because the trials proved it - they didn't. At only ~64,000 participants the e.g. Pfizer trial was not powered to show any difference to deaths and didn't use hospitalizations as a goal metric either, only infections.
And so we're forced to rely on the testimony of the same people in charge of the program, where their data is often missing or deceptive in some way. For example Germany has been claiming nearly all cases occur in the unvaccinated. It turned out this wasn't true. Rather, they don't have data at all on the status of most cases, and then reallocate all the "unknown" column to "unvaccinated" because ... well, why not? No matter what they do, plenty of people will still take their word for everything. This was revealed by Die Welt and the response was nothing. They still do it, as far as I know.
The UK data is usually considered to be the best, as in, the most detailed. And there, when the data on deaths is studied carefully it turns out to be riddled with anomalies and problems that cast doubt on whether vaccines did in fact reduce mortality (the numbers are low enough that statistical artifacts can actually matter). For example, in the UK data vaccination reduces non-COVID deaths in unvaccinated people. Don't take my word for it, ask a professor of risk management:
http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/12/possible-syste...
"Our research team have now analysed the ONS England November mortality data. We conclude that, despite seeming evidence to support vaccine effectiveness, this conclusion is doubtful because of a range of serious inconsistencies and anomalies", "The ONS data provide no reliable evidence that the vaccines reduce all-cause mortality."
https://garycornell.com/2021/07/28/the-base-rate-fallacy-x-o...
EDIT:
In the case of my numbers, I'm based in the US. I wish we had a high enough vaccination rate to worry about the base rate fallacy. I'm surrounded by rural areas who unfortunately don't believe in vaccines until they show up in the ER. We have an enormous surgical backlog due to antivaxxers having filled up the hospitals for months on end.
"We have an enormous surgical backlog due to antivaxxers having filled up the hospitals for months on end."
You have a surgical backlog because your hospitals have been firing staff. Former "heros" who, quite sensibly, observed that as they'd already had COVID they didn't need a vaccine for it, and who were immediately demonized and excluded despite the hospitals supposedly being overwhelmed. You might want to meditate on that and consider whether that's the expected course of action during a crisis or not.
Where I live, there is no vaccine mandate for hospital staff due to staffing concerns. Talking with actual local physicians, nurses and doctors are quitting in droves after seeing a huge amount of preventable death in the past few months, by patients who deny the reality of the disease they have, and whos families harass hospital staff about treatments that don't work (hcq/ivermectin/whatever the latest magic pill is now).
I actually am against vaccine mandates and don't think anyone who doesn't want the vaccine should be forced to take it. That said, if you don't take it, I don't want you in the hospital if you end up getting covid. Take hcq/ivermectin/whatever joe rogan is saying now rather than occupy a hospital bed, don't clog up the hospital due to your mistake.
This is not correct. We've seen quite a few hospitalisations. See the dramatic uptick in South African hospital numbers.
Deaths have generally occurred about 4 weeks after infection. Omicron was only reported to the WHO about 3 weeks ago.
The rest of your post is of a similar level of confusion.
I suspect that if this omicron had emerged in 2018 at least with the symptoms and lack of severe disease that we have seen so far…it would likely have been described as a virulent common cold and may have gotten an occasional news mention, but zero public and government panic.
I think the phrase “Look for the devil and you will find him” is going to describe virology and government approach to virology for probably the next decade. This is a shame, because it seems to create and feed tyrants at almost every level of government.
I see currently reported numbers of 75% and 81% for those rates respectively, which means unvaccinated people are over-represented by about 30% relative their percentage of the population. Now these numbers are still very new, and unreliable, have no confidence interval, and only for infection, not hospitalization. But I don’t think that difference would be irrelevant, unless it ceases to hold up after data is collected over the next few weeks.