Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Thursday January 13, @04:32AM   Printer-friendly
from the I-hope-it's-only-the-legs-half dept.

Omicron May Infect Half of Europeans Within Weeks, WHO Says:

More than half of Europe's population could become infected with omicron within weeks at current transmission speeds, a World Health Organization official said.

The fast-spreading variant represents a "west-to-east tsunami sweeping the region," Hans Kluge, WHO regional director for Europe, said in a briefing Tuesday.

He cited the Institute for Metrics and Health Assessment forecast that most Europeans could take it within the next six to eight weeks. The latest Covid surge has resulted in fewer symptomatic cases and lower death rates than in previous waves, fueling optimism that the pandemic may subside.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 13, @01:10PM (1 child)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 13, @01:10PM (#1212393) Journal
    Your post for starters which acknowledges that lack of data. And the lower severity of omicron - indicates adaptations for better fitness. My take is that means that less of the virus's biological activity goes to stuff that doesn't further virus propagation, like creating long term symptoms.

    Not that I would trust evolution very far here. The flu is far more evolved for humans and it typically has a high long symptom occurrence as well (as described in the study which attributed a 16% lower chance of long term symptoms from the flu than from covid over that time period).

    BUT 20% IS for a mostly-vaccinated population!

    Not for a study that ends in February 2021! I note also that people got in the sample by either exhibiting symptoms or testing positive for covid. That won't generate an accurate sampling of asymptomatic covid cases for that time frame.

    Plenty of other large-N studies backing this up.

    Let's see those studies then (peculiar that you're saying these studies exist when you were claiming "no data" earlier). My take is that a significantly less severe disease over a more vaccinated population will result in significantly lower long term symptoms.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14, @12:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 14, @12:36AM (#1212553)

    Your post for starters which acknowledges that lack of data.

    Then the burden of proof is on you. When my abusive uncle shows up drunk and swears this time it'll be different, today he drank beer not whiskey, the situation is too similar to a known danger.

    My take is

    Your hot take is not worth the time it took to read. Statistics or bust. Evidence or bust.

    for a study that ends in February 2021!

    ...right. Peer review takes a while. This is our best data. We have no reason to believe Omicron leads to less Long COVID.

    Do you get it?

    We have no reason to believe Omicron leads to less Long COVID.

    We have no reason to believe Omicron leads to less Long COVID.

    The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate that Omicron is less dangerous somehow, if you want to shift our well-based priors.

    Let's see those studies then (peculiar that you're saying these studies exist when you were claiming "no data" earlier).

    If you don't understand the difference between "we have no data indicating it's weaker" and "we have data indicating Long COVID is common", and why the two can simultaneously be true, then I don't want to try and talk with you, because anyone who claims 2+3=4 in the integer number system, can prove anything they want, and disprove anything they want.

    If you bother to search, look at Nehme in AIM, Groff in JAMA, the USA's VA/mil numbers, etc etc etc. There's lots of strong results. They only meaningfully disagree in their definition of PASC.