Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Omicron variant

Options
199100102104105117

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 466 ✭✭discostu1


    The second one from SKy is basically most of the Sarah Gilbert one with added notes from Sir John Bell



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭Klonker


    I would say its more like 100k+ cases a day at the moment. Unfortunately I don't think being vaccinated helps with immunity at all with this variant.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭Micky 32


    It still significantly reduces serious illness though. It gives the same benefits of immunity. One of the main reasons hospitalizations are low despite huge cases numbers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 455 ✭✭KieferFan69


    This seems to be winding down, finally. Most ppl I speak to are ready to move on. No harm.



  • Registered Users Posts: 136 ✭✭MTU




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 455 ✭✭KieferFan69


    Vax rates in South Africa are not great and it looks like they didn’t struggle with Omicron.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The median age in South Africa is 28 compared to 38 in Ireland, which is hugely significant. Likewise, pretty much all South African studies so far have correctly highlighted the following

    Since any combination of a less-virulent virus, comorbidities, high immunity from prior infection(s) or vaccination may be important contributors to this clinical presentation, care should be taken in extrapolating this to other populations with different co-morbidity profiles, prevalence of prior infection and vaccination coverage.




  • Registered Users Posts: 18,814 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    Indeed. Imagine Omicron had happened in December 2020, with virtually no vaccinations given yet.....hospitals and ICUs would be at bursting point.



  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    People have been 'extrapolating' all kinds of things to push a point of view. If the news from SA would have been bad it wouldve appeared in the news right after a report like it did w the onset of Omicron and the WHO regarding it a VOC. But because the news was increasingly good we had people tell us we didnt have enough data yet, wait and see, another two weeks and after another two weeks another two weeks to push good Santa after the holidays, even after UK data showed pretty much the same trajectory. Little by little people started to cop on until those in the field felt save enough to state the positivity around Omicron.

    The truth is that most countries more or less follow the same trajectory if you disgard testing and reporting data except for some outliers like Japan which may or may not having something to do w IVM.

    Those who still push for the line that SA is different are im afraid rather behind the times and reluctant to give in almost as if they have been afflicted by something. The rest have moved on. Re-hashing irrelevant data reeks of bad faith..



  • Registered Users Posts: 596 ✭✭✭deholleboom


    The thing is that nobody has a clue about this including virologists. People claim all sorts of things which they cant prove..



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]



    Are you suggesting that the peer reviewed paper that I quoted is pushing a point of view? That me quoting a paper that was published four days ago is "re-hashing irrelevant data"? (Edit: I don't even think it's been fully published yet.)

    Nothing you've said in this post makes the slightest bit of sense.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Statisticians would have a fairly good idea. However, they have better things to do than to consider whataboutery.



  • Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so




  • Registered Users Posts: 7,695 ✭✭✭Chivito550


    So on one hand we have people saying this variant is milder. But then you have people saying that if it wasn't for vaccines it would be a blood bath. If you take the second point of view, then it's not milder at all. In fact, it would make this variant worse, as so many still got mild sickness despite vaccination, while with previous strains, pre vaccines, many were asymptomatic.

    So which one is it?

    I feel people are trying to justify the vaccines by saying they are making a difference with this strain. But it's a total contradiction to how viruses work - as they progress they become more transmissible and less dangerous. If we accept the vaccine is helping with Omicron, then that view point can't also be held.

    Reality is nature is just taking its course, and it's got very little to do with human intervention.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    So on one hand we have people saying this variant is milder. But then you have people saying that if it wasn't for vaccines it would be a blood bath. If you take the second point of view, then it's not milder at all. In fact, it would make this variant worse, as so many still got mild sickness despite vaccination, while with previous strains, pre vaccines, many were asymptomatic.

    So which one is it?

    If it's less lethal but more transmissible, then both can be true.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    +1 It's certainly looking a lot less deadly, but as you say we're not dealing with a blank slate here. Vaccines, previous exposure and the horridly termed "dry tinder" effect where the weakest people in a demographic die off in the first wave, so there are fewer very vulnerable people second and third time out can skew the numbers. The numbers themselves can hide things too. In the sense that thankfully this is not a particularly deadly virus unless you're in the very vulnerable groups and even there you'd still be very unlucky to die from this pox even pre vaccines. So people today reckoning they've had it and it was like a bad headcold doesn't tell us much, even if the person is unvaccinated. For over 99% of the overall population before vaccines and with previous variants it also could have been described as a "bad headcold". Unless you were in that 1% where it most certainly wasn't.

    Even so the hard facts around vaccines are in. When half of ICU patients are unvaccinated and the wider adult population is well over 90% vaccinated and the age profile of those patients is dropping when the age profile before vaccines was going very much in the other direction it's pretty clear the vaccines worked extremely well against serious illness and death.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    But it's a total contradiction to how viruses work - as they progress they become more transmissible and less dangerous.

    This statement just shows how an erroneous idea can spread so easily. It's quite simply not true, but people keep saying it and if enough people keep saying it... It's like a virus itself.

    Polio, smallpox, influenza, SARS, ebola, HIV, measles, MERS, dengue, west Nile, rabies. None of them became less dangerous and a few of them have been with humans for thousands of years. Measles is the most infectious agent we know of and its lethality didn't change over time. Smallpox came and went in waves, the nasty form killing a third of the infected. Influenza is pretty consistent in its lethality year on year and when it does mutate it's more likely to be more dangerous.

    What has happened throughout history is not that virus changed, but the hosts did. We changed. The first waves left people dead or recovered, so the virus ran out of hosts to infect, until background immunity dropped off, or the virus changed enough to infect the previously immune. Vaccination gets ahead of things. So actually and thankfully Omicron is more of a contradiction rather than the rule.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lbj666


    Do viruses evolve to become less dangerous or do populations become more resilient. How many laps through the population did the Spanish flu do?.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Do viruses evolve to become less dangerous or do populations become more resilient.

    It seems in the majority of cases it's some mix of both, but mostly the latter.

    How many laps through the population did the Spanish flu do?.

    Four if memory serves. The first wave was like average flu, mostly affecting the old, very young and weak. The ones that caught and recovered from that were immune to subsequent waves. The second wave was the real killer and hit those in the prime of life much more than usual. Symptoms were unsually vicious too with things like bleeding from the nose, hair and teeth falling out and limbs going black.😯 The third and fourth waves were much less deadly and it had burnt out by 1920-21

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,650 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Viruses evolve zillions of times quicker than humans.


    Seems implausible to me that humans could have evolved in that way.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    They don't. Their immune systems do and our immune systems are very good at responding to threats. As a population is exposed a few die, most recover and the recovered retain immunity to the pathogen for a time(variable) and the virus runs out of hosts and/or evolves to get around the existing immunity.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lbj666




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,650 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Yes,I understand now.I think probably our acquired immumity may not be permanently fixed and I doubt we would have any defenses against smallpox ,for example if it was reappeared.


    But I stand to be corrected.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,650 ✭✭✭amandstu


    @Wibbs

    "Symptoms were unsually vicious too with things like bleeding from the nose, hair and teeth falling out and limbs going black"


    Have those symptoms been studied?

    They don't sound like common or garden flu symptoms to my limited understanding.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    There is a genetic addition found in some among European populations that may be a response to smallpox. Or it could be a response to the plague. Smallpox seems more likely as plague is bacterial. By coincidence it seems to increase resistance to HIV infection.

    AfAIR the symptoms were the result of a cytokine storm in the infected. This is what led to the deaths of many(along with opportunistic pneumonia) and it's one theory why young adults got hit by it worse. The very old and the very young have weaker immune systems on average so a cytokine storm is less likely. SARS and MERS did similar. Ebola which has similar symptoms is partly to do with cytokine storms too.

    I suppose with modern medicine and meds like steroids which tamp down the immune system reduce such extreme symptoms in bad flu cases today?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,108 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Did it not occur to you that "imagine" is the problem here? Like if you imagine too much you may lose touch with reality.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Appreciate your comments on here, as you seem well versed in the subject. However, are you not contradicting yourself when you say "It seems in the majority of cases it's some mix of both, but mostly the latter" when responding to the question "Do viruses evolve to become less dangerous or do populations become more resilient"?

    In some of your previous posts, you seem to be stating that viruses do not evolve (devolve?!) to become less deadly, but above you suggest that it can happen to some extent?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,161 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I see your point Dom. It's more my point that this constantly repeated mantra of "viruses get more infectious and less deadly over time" that I have problems with.

    I suppose for clarity I would say that the evolutionary fitness of a virus is what counts and transmission/reproduction is numero uno and what is selected for. Lethality is a coin toss. While some may mutate into less lethality as a byproduct of increased transmission(or pure luck). Omicron seems to be one such case. It became more infectious because it hits the upper respiratory system and the body can get to fighting it before it gets and deeper and cause more serious illness. However they might just as easily mutate for increased transmission and more lethality as a byproduct, or become more transmissable and stay just as lethal. Where there could be selective pressure on a virus to mutate for less lethality would be if the host got so sick and died before spreading the virus, then the variant that let the host live for longer and spread more would become the winner.

    That's before we get to the immune system and how a virus runs through a population. In a "virgin" population the virus spreads and serious illness and death ramp up. The recovered and the dead(and latterly the vaccinated) are resistant to that variant so if another wave occurs that original population suffer far less, so it looks like the virus got less lethal over time.

    Again if we look at history and viruses that affect humans. Some have been around for thousands of years and didn't change in lethality. Influenza is with us every year and in most years it's mild, save for a minority. When it has mutated in the past it's far more likely to have mutated to be worse.

    But take covid 19. Alpha was a major worry, but the second wave Delta was more infectious and as deadly if not more so in the population(unvaccinated), Omicron is more infectious again and appears to be less deadly. Same virus, different strains, getting progressively more infectious, but when it first became more infectious it also got more deadly. Another variant could become more deadly with the same infectiousness. However Omicron being so infectious and in majority vaccinated populations some sort of "herd immunity" is looking good, so unless a covid comes along that evades immunity we should be looking very good.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,344 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Not really. Imagining the best case scenarios like that the virus becomes less and less deadly and becomes as harmful as a bad cold or a normal flu, is never met with suggestions that you might lose touch with reality. It's just the thing we WANT to happen so we like imagining it.

    We don't want it to take years or a decade for it to become so much less harmful, but it's probably possible that it could take longer than we want to imagine.

    It makes sense to discuss the reality rather than limiting the discussion to the scenarios we want to happen.

    Post edited by El_Duderino 09 on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭dominatinMC


    Cheers for that Wibbs. I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, but was just genuinely curious. In amongst all the debates on here, the one good thing I have taken from this Covid crisis is a newfound appreciation for the area of biology, and more specifically virology, epidemiology and immunology. Some of the content makes for fascinating (if not slightly frightening!) reading at times.



Advertisement