Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Julian]

there seems to be a chance that the latest variant of Omicron is even more infectious and it doesn't show up on PCR tests

Please stop spreading this misinformation.

As I said upthread, BA.2 (the "new omicron") is detected as SARS2 perfectly well by PCR tests. The only issue is that a "hack" no longer works for BA.2, that allowed the exact variant to be inferred from just a three-target PCR (quick, cheap) rather than full genome sequencing (slow, £££). In that regard it is just like delta and most other SARS2 variants.

Except that we are now in a situation where the background is 100% omicron BA.1 ("classic omicron") where the hack works, so if you get a PCR where the hack doesn't work, the working assumption is that you're dealing with BA.2.

So in the present background, BA.2 isn't "stealthy" at all. It's like someone wearing cammo is "stealthy" in a woodland, but is not "stealthy" at all against a white wall.

OK, I missed that post but I will tell TT journalist what you said. More importantly, is there any more news re infectivty and risk of severe disease with the latest variant of the latest variant?

Sorry to hear about your sister Bouleversee.

Yes, it is shocking how quite a lot of mainstream media reporting is misrepresenting this new Omicron variant (Omicron BA.2) when it comes to being picked up by tests. Sometimes I wonder whether it is just so that they can get a headline that they think sounds cool because it has the word "stealth" in it when that is so totally misleading as Hallucigenia has explained.

My brief answer to your questions based on what I have heard and read so far is ...

- More infectious? Right now almost certainly yes maybe by about 30% vs Omicron variant first detected in South Africa in November 2021 (BA.1 variant).

- More severe? We don't know for sure right now but there is no evidence to suspect that it is. I get the impression that the expectation is that severity will be very similar to the BA.1 Omicron variant that became dominant in the UK by Christmas (or thereabouts).

- More able to evade immunity? Again we don't know for sure yet but there is no evidence so far to suspect it is, in fact there is some evidence to suspect it might have slightly less ability to evade immunity than the BA.1 Omicron variant first discovered in South Africa.

If you have about 23 minutes to spare this video from Dr John Campbell discusses the above, in fact it's where I got the info from to inform my response. It's not a hugely technical video, he simply walks through some results collected so far covering pretty much the questions you asked interspersed with some opinions quoted from various experts about what those results are currently suggesting. The link is here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9utcza ... hnCampbell

- Julian

[Bouleversee]

Thank you , Julian. I will try to listen to it, about 2 a.m. at present rate of progress.

[odysseus2000]

Dear Bouleversee,

I am very sorry to learn of the loss of your sister, made yet more tragic & painful by being separated from her & the medical information.

It is terrible to lose someone dear, but often one can take some comfort from having done everything humanly possible, but for you this could not be & no doubt you are left wondering if you could have made a difference had you been there.

There is no antidote to these emotions, only time can heal & bring an acceptance.

When my Father was in hospital for the last time he caught some bug & all the medics could say was that this happens in hospitals. Covid may be the impetus for hospitals to attend to the control of virus & bacteria, but as of now they are not competent in the protection of patients. There is also a streak of callousness that runs through the whole medical profession, endlessly happy to fob off relatives, introduce no resuscitation policies, all of which seems to convince many relatives that there is no hope.

I was a total mess when my Father died & it took me years to get back into sensible thoughts & accept that I did my best although I still feel that the hospital didn’t & that the whole medical system is not fit for the 21st century. The most scary thing looking back is that I thought I was coping well, convincing myself that I was doing good, but only now with hindsight do I see the mess that I was. There was no one to help me. I do hope you have good support, that makes a huge positive difference.

None of us can change what happens, but we can resolve to look after ourselves, not that I did, and make the best of things for the many that need us fit & well.

Take good care of yourself!

[Bouleversee]

Thank you, O.

[pje16]

My Dad, aged 91, was offered his 4th jab yesterday
Anyone else been offered that ?

[ElectronicFur]

My Dad, aged 91, was offered his 4th jab yesterday
Anyone else been offered that ?

When I was fact-checking a newspaper article about my local hospital, the official health board's ICU statistics showed that the majority of ICU patients had 3 jabs, but also there were a number of ICU patients who had 4 jabs. So some have already had 4 jabs, that data was from 1st Dec to 13th Jan.

[Mike4]

My Dad, aged 91, was offered his 4th jab yesterday
Anyone else been offered that ?

When I was fact-checking a newspaper article about my local hospital, the official health board's ICU statistics showed that the majority of ICU patients had 3 jabs, but also there were a number of ICU patients who had 4 jabs. So some have already had 4 jabs, that data was from 1st Dec to 13th Jan.

That's interesting.

To make any sense of it we need to know why the patients were in ICU though. If they are all in ICU recovering from say, heart operations, yes I'd expect all of them to be triple jabbed.

In fact I was only reading earlier of a patient in the USA removed from the heart transplant waiting list because he refuses to be covid-vaxxed.

[ElectronicFur]

My post was merely for pje16 to show there are already patients who've had the 4th jab.

I didn't need to know why they were in ICU as I was fact-checking the fact the newspaper stated the ICU was full of unvaccinated patients. And that claim turned out to be misleading to say the least.

I'd also expect them to be triple jabbed. More so if they are in for heart operations due to myocarditis... Unfortunately local 17 year old's just been told by the doctors he needs a heart transplant due to vaccine damage.

[pje16]

My post was merely for pje16 to show there are already patients who've had the 4th jab.

Appreciated

[Julian]

My post was merely for pje16 to show there are already patients who've had the 4th jab.

I didn't need to know why they were in ICU as I was fact-checking the fact the newspaper stated the ICU was full of unvaccinated patients. And that claim turned out to be misleading to say the least.

I'd also expect them to be triple jabbed. More so if they are in for heart operations due to myocarditis... Unfortunately local 17 year old's just been told by the doctors he needs a heart transplant due to vaccine damage.

It's impossible to say without seeing the text of the newspaper article you were fact checking but until I see that article I remain unconvinced that what you uncovered does debunk its claim. The fact that the article talks about how many patients were unvaccinated (against Covid-19 I presume) makes me think that the claim being made in the article was probably that the majority (or a large number) of those patients that landed up in ICU because of Covid-19 were unvaccinated not that the majority of patients in ICU for all reasons e.g. not only Covid-19 but also car and other accidents, strokes, heart attacks, difficult post-operative recoveries and all the other severe conditions that might lead someone to end up on ICU. All you did was dig up that later figure and it's not sufficient to determine the veracity of the claim that I suspect the newspaper article was trying to make.

To give some context the latest UK government data shows 535 Covid-19 patients in mechanical ventilation beds as of 28th Jan (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare) and according to this article (https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... osses-warn) the UK has 7.3 ICU beds per 100,000 population which with the UK's approx 67 million population gives a total of about 4,900 ICU beds. This is just "context" since I don't know what percentage of maximum capacity the UK's ICU beds are running at at the moment and the 535 figure from the UK Covid-19 dashboard is I suspect at best a rough proxy for Covid-19 patients in ICU since it is possible that not all Covid-19 patients in ICU are on mechanical ventilation but on the other hand I think (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that those mechanical ventilation figures also include CPAP which I think (again, correction welcomed if necessary) doesn't automatically imply that the patient is in an ICU bed. Even with those caveats though the huge difference between 535 and 4,900 makes me think that the 535 number needs to be a truly appalling proxy for Covid-19 ICU patients and/or the overall ICU occupancy rate needs to be way below the national capacity for the percentage of people who are in ICU because of Covid-19 to be anywhere near 50% and it is quite possible that it is actually somewhere in the 10-15% range so yes, you really do need to exclude the non-Covid-19 patients if the newspaper was trying to make a claim specifically about Covid-19 patients in ICU.

- Julian

[Hallucigenia]

- More severe? We don't know for sure right now but there is no evidence to suspect that it is. I get the impression that the expectation is that severity will be very similar to the BA.1 Omicron variant that became dominant in the UK by Christmas (or thereabouts).

- More able to evade immunity? Again we don't know for sure yet but there is no evidence so far to suspect it is, in fact there is some evidence to suspect it might have slightly less ability to evade immunity than the BA.1 Omicron variant first discovered in South Africa.

Last week's UKHSA technical briefing has this on BA.2 (the "new" omicron) :

A preliminary assessment did not find evidence of a difference in vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease for BA.2 compared to BA.1. However, numbers included in this study are relatively small and it will be iterated. The University of Oxford has reported preliminary unpublished pseudovirus neutralisation data. In this study, BA.1 and BA.2 pseudoviruses did not differ substantially in neutralisation by sera from vaccinated individuals.

However, this preprint based on epidemiology in Denmark suggests otherwise :
Among 8,541 primary household cases, of which 2,122 were BA.2, we identified a total of 5,702 secondary infections among 17,945 potential secondary cases during a 1-7 day follow-up period. The secondary attack rate (SAR) was estimated as 29% and 39% in households infected with Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, respectively. We found BA.2 to be associated with an increased susceptibility of infection for unvaccinated individuals (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.19; 95%-CI 1.58-3.04), fully vaccinated individuals (OR 2.45; 95%-CI 1.77-3.40) and booster-vaccinated individuals (OR 2.99; 95%-CI 2.11-4.24), compared to BA.1. We also found an increased transmissibility from unvaccinated primary cases in BA.2 households when compared to BA.1 households, with an OR of 2.62 (95%-CI 1.96-3.52). The pattern of increased transmissibility in BA.2 households was not observed for fully vaccinated and booster-vaccinated primary cases, where the OR of transmission was below 1 for BA.2 compared to BA.1. We conclude that Omicron BA.2 is inherently substantially more transmissible than BA.1, and that it also possesses immune-evasive properties that further reduce the protective effect of vaccination against infection, but do not increase its transmissibility from vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections.

It's early days yet in the BA.2 story - these things take time to work through and the first draft of science is often messy and contradictory like this. But in general I'd trust "real" viruses fighting the full complexity of the human body versus pseudoviruses tested on just one metric, so I'd base my working model on the Danish study at this stage.

[Bouleversee]

My post was merely for pje16 to show there are already patients who've had the 4th jab.

I didn't need to know why they were in ICU as I was fact-checking the fact the newspaper stated the ICU was full of unvaccinated patients. And that claim turned out to be misleading to say the least.

I'd also expect them to be triple jabbed. More so if they are in for heart operations due to myocarditis... Unfortunately local 17 year old's just been told by the doctors he needs a heart transplant due to vaccine damage.

Is it known yet why the vaccine can cause myocarditis, albeit in rare cases, and is it more in young people or at any age?

[Bouleversee]

If I am understanding the following extract from Hallucigenia's post correctly (not necessarily the case!) it would suggest that all those carers and hospital workers who refuse to be vaccinated represent a serious threat to patients with other serious illnesses and that the recent change in govt. policy making vaccination no longer mandatory is purely because there are not enough replacements available rather than that the risk of infection has diminished. If my late sister's experience is anything to go by, patients who one might have thought should be in intensive care are scattered in general wards and in some cases turfed out to respite care and it is all too easy to be infected with this virus which can be lethal for some people even if relatively benign for most. Doesn't this make the figures for Covid in ICUs rather meaningless?

Didn't Javed say something about single rooms in the future? I can't see that happening in a hurry, though.

"However, this preprint based on epidemiology in Denmark suggests otherwise :
Among 8,541 primary household cases, of which 2,122 were BA.2, we identified a total of 5,702 secondary infections among 17,945 potential secondary cases during a 1-7 day follow-up period. The secondary attack rate (SAR) was estimated as 29% and 39% in households infected with Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, respectively. We found BA.2 to be associated with an increased susceptibility of infection for unvaccinated individuals (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.19; 95%-CI 1.58-3.04), fully vaccinated individuals (OR 2.45; 95%-CI 1.77-3.40) and booster-vaccinated individuals (OR 2.99; 95%-CI 2.11-4.24), compared to BA.1. We also found an increased transmissibility from unvaccinated primary cases in BA.2 households when compared to BA.1 households, with an OR of 2.62 (95%-CI 1.96-3.52). The pattern of increased transmissibility in BA.2 households was not observed for fully vaccinated and booster-vaccinated primary cases, where the OR of transmission was below 1 for BA.2 compared to BA.1. We conclude that Omicron BA.2 is inherently substantially more transmissible than BA.1, and that it also possesses immune-evasive properties that further reduce the protective effect of vaccination against infection, but do not increase its transmissibility from vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections. "

[9873210]

To give some context the latest UK government data shows 535 Covid-19 patients in mechanical ventilation beds as of 28th Jan (https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare) and according to this article (https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... osses-warn) the UK has 7.3 ICU beds per 100,000 population which with the UK's approx 67 million population gives a total of about 4,900 ICU beds. This is just "context" since I don't know what percentage of maximum capacity the UK's ICU beds are running at at the moment and the 535 figure from the UK Covid-19 dashboard is I suspect at best a rough proxy for Covid-19 patients in ICU since it is possible that not all Covid-19 patients in ICU are on mechanical ventilation but on the other hand I think (someone please correct me if I am wrong) that those mechanical ventilation figures also include CPAP which I think (again, correction welcomed if necessary) doesn't automatically imply that the patient is in an ICU bed. Even with those caveats though the huge difference between 535 and 4,900 makes me think that the 535 number needs to be a truly appalling proxy for Covid-19 ICU patients and/or the overall ICU occupancy rate needs to be way below the national capacity for the percentage of people who are in ICU because of Covid-19 to be anywhere near 50% and it is quite possible that it is actually somewhere in the 10-15% range so yes, you really do need to exclude the non-Covid-19 patients if the newspaper was trying to make a claim specifically about Covid-19 patients in ICU.

- Julian

As an added complication, which suggests care in interpreting the numbers.

AIUI this metric is intended to be used for managing health care resources, not monitoring the sickness of patients.

My understanding is that a person is counted as being "in a mechanical ventilation bed" if the bed (and surrounding environment) is compatible with mechanical ventilation, whether or not mechanical ventilation is in use. Some patients will be in an ICU for intense monitoring but breathing on their own; if the bed supports mechanical ventilation, they are counted as "in a bed that supports mechanical ventilation" even though not mechanically ventilated.

In normal times this is not uncommon. Many* ICU beds support mechanical ventilation because with sicker patients it could be required at any time, even if not now. This may differ when mechanical ventilation equipment is in short supply.

* Possibly most or even all ICU beds support mechanical ventilation, but I can't find a breakdown.

[ElectronicFur]

If I am understanding the following extract from Hallucigenia's post correctly (not necessarily the case!) it would suggest that all those carers and hospital workers who refuse to be vaccinated represent a serious threat to patients with other serious illnesses and that the recent change in govt. policy making vaccination no longer mandatory is purely because there are not enough replacements available rather than that the risk of infection has diminished."

The latest actual data here in Wales from Public Health Wales shows for all ages 18+ the rate of people with Covid-19 is higher in the fully vaccinated group. Which would suggest that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

[Mike4]

If I am understanding the following extract from Hallucigenia's post correctly (not necessarily the case!) it would suggest that all those carers and hospital workers who refuse to be vaccinated represent a serious threat to patients with other serious illnesses and that the recent change in govt. policy making vaccination no longer mandatory is purely because there are not enough replacements available rather than that the risk of infection has diminished."

The latest actual data here in Wales from Public Health Wales shows for all ages 18+ the rate of people with Covid-19 is higher in the fully vaccinated group. Which would suggest that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

I don't think you can come on here making a counter-intuitive claim like that without citing the source of your data!

Could you post it up a link please? I'm very intrigued now! Much obliged.

[dealtn]

If I am understanding the following extract from Hallucigenia's post correctly (not necessarily the case!) it would suggest that all those carers and hospital workers who refuse to be vaccinated represent a serious threat to patients with other serious illnesses and that the recent change in govt. policy making vaccination no longer mandatory is purely because there are not enough replacements available rather than that the risk of infection has diminished."

The latest actual data here in Wales from Public Health Wales shows for all ages 18+ the rate of people with Covid-19 is higher in the fully vaccinated group. Which would suggest that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

I don't think you can come on here making a counter-intuitive claim like that without citing the source of your data!

I guess you can if it's "completely pointless and unscientific".

[ElectronicFur]

If I am understanding the following extract from Hallucigenia's post correctly (not necessarily the case!) it would suggest that all those carers and hospital workers who refuse to be vaccinated represent a serious threat to patients with other serious illnesses and that the recent change in govt. policy making vaccination no longer mandatory is purely because there are not enough replacements available rather than that the risk of infection has diminished."

The latest actual data here in Wales from Public Health Wales shows for all ages 18+ the rate of people with Covid-19 is higher in the fully vaccinated group. Which would suggest that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.

I don't think you can come on here making a counter-intuitive claim like that without citing the source of your data!

Could you post it up a link please? I'm very intrigued now! Much obliged.

As I stated, the source is Public Health Wales. I didn't post any data, because the thread title stated no statistics.

But since you ask, the table below is from the Public Health Wales December survey of vaccine status in cases report. As you can see for all ages 18+ the rate per 100,000 is higher in the vaccinated group. For some reason they decided not to publish the January report containing figures for December, I have asked...

[vrdiver]

As you can see for all ages 18+ the rate per 100,000 is higher in the vaccinated group.

I've not gone to Public Health Wales, but to the ONS report*, which shows similar data for the UK.

Regarding the usage of the rates of infection, it specifically states:

Comparing case rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations should not be used to estimate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 infection. Vaccine effectiveness has been formally estimated from a number of different sources and is summarised on pages 4 to 15 in this report.

Presenting the raw data out of context is, in my opinion, not helpful (regardless of which thread it's posted on). For example, the report makes the point that vaccines were given to those most likely to be exposed to the virus, or most likely to suffer poor outcomes should they be infected. Elsewhere, I read that being vaccinated reduces your risk of Covid outcomes to similar levels as somebody 30 years younger. If that is approximately true then it is no surprise that older, more vulnerable people are vaccinated and ending up in hospital.

The good news is that they are not dead.

Claiming that this is evidence that

for all ages 18+ the rate of people with Covid-19 is higher in the fully vaccinated group. Which would suggest that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific

is extremely misleading. You could perhaps make an argument that with Covid-19 becoming endemic, and the vast majority of the population having been exposed and/or vaccinated, vaccine passports no longer make sense, but implying that unvaccinated people are at less risk than their vaccinated peers doesn't.

VRD


*https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1050721/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-4.pdf

[ElectronicFur]

Claiming that this is evidence that

for all ages 18+ the rate of people with Covid-19 is higher in the fully vaccinated group. Which would suggest that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific

is extremely misleading. You could perhaps make an argument that with Covid-19 becoming endemic, and the vast majority of the population having been exposed and/or vaccinated, vaccine passports no longer make sense, but implying that unvaccinated people are at less risk than their vaccinated peers doesn't.

You are the one trying mislead away from the simple fact that PHW data clearly shows for all ages 18+ the rate per 100,000 is higher in the vaccinated group. And that suggests that vaccine passports and mandates are completely pointless and unscientific.