Omicron Variant

7,455 Views | 43 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by DukeMu
SBISA Victim
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
appears to be mild and cause less severe disease for the majority of people, but it's absolutely brutal for the under 5 age group. The variant is behind a drastic surge in Covid patients 5 and under in South Africa.

Edit: forgot to post link

https://www.thedailybeast.com/omicron-variant-puttings-huge-numbers-of-kids-under-5-years-old-in-hospital-in-south-africa?source=articles&via=rss
Old McDonald
How long do you want to ignore this user?
that's not good news… obviously we're in the early days of omicron and there's not a whole lot of data yet so I'm trying to maintain a healthy skepticism of alarmist news. hoping this isn't part of a larger trend.

for our doctors here, how might a respiratory virus like covid mutate to be more dangerous to young children specifically?
Old Buffalo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Viruses don't become more deadly to a younger population over time....


Another Doug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I am always leery of articles that reference other articles and just focus on scary ways to take one quote. I decided to find the data in this case that supported the quote. First off, really impressed at the quality of data South Africa has. Its early and limited data at this point, but worth looking at.

https://www.nicd.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/NICD-COVID-19-Weekly-Sentinel-Hospital-Surveillnace-update-Week-47-2021.pdf

Page 17 and 18 are probable the most interesting graph as they compare this wave to the previous wave


KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ah crap I hope this is just some skewed early data or my winter is going to be rough at work.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
cone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
yikes

here come school closures
cone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JRB is in real trouble
JP_Losman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
it is time... full lockdowns.
Philip J Fry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Or, you know, we learn how to live with it. Lockdowns do nothing but delay the inevitable.
cisgenderedAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Daily Beast has struck me as about as reliable as infowars. Need to see some actual data. Pop tabloids don't get trusted anymore.
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess the good news in USA and Texas especially is the majority of young kids have already had it and seem to get pretty long term immunity.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cisgenderedAggie said:

Daily Beast has struck me as about as reliable as infowars. Need to see some actual data. Pop tabloids don't get trusted anymore.
Did you see the graphs from South Africa posted above? That is from their CDC basically.

I agree regarding Daily Beast though.. clickbait site.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Atreides Ornithopter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is this because people protected 5 and under more earlier and they are getting it? Just like with RSV.
cone
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
but i thought that was the feature of omicron

it's evading immunity of all types
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
cone said:

but i thought that was the feature of omicron

it's evading immunity of all types
It is really unclear at this time as it is too new, but that is the concern and what the early data is suggesting. It would be great to know how many of the kids admitted had evidence of past immunity because in the same article they are talking about how the older kids being admitted are unvaccinated so it seems to give some kind of protection, likely T cell mediated.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
cisgenderedAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KidDoc said:

cisgenderedAggie said:

Daily Beast has struck me as about as reliable as infowars. Need to see some actual data. Pop tabloids don't get trusted anymore.
Did you see the graphs from South Africa posted above? That is from their CDC basically.

I agree regarding Daily Beast though.. clickbait site.


Yes. The numbers were 73/640 with average time of 3 days. Seems like better context could be had. Was it severe? What sample size is 640 a subset against? Background vaccination rate?

Some of those aren't likely comparable to US, and I've not read much alarm coming from SA. Mostly just pop press.

In short, Covid alarm has lost most trust for me and needs to be heavily supported before taking credibly. That's my professional scientific opinion as a clinical researcher.
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Same here. Nothing in the official medical press thus far so I'm hoping it is just some outlier data or kids with other health conditions.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
coolerguy12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
A guy over on F16 predicted this one would be super duper scary for kids. Crazy how often the conspiracy theorist wind up being right with this thing.

It's not hard when you keep the end goal in mind.
cisgenderedAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
coolerguy12 said:

A guy over on F16 predicted this one would be super duper scary for kids. Crazy how often the conspiracy theorist wind up being right with this thing.

It's not hard when you keep the end goal in mind.


The problem is with the popular press, and to some degree medical and scientific community that doesn't call them out. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize that the popular press has bad intentions.

Dig deeper and read the data. Learn what you don't understand with an open mind. Gather an opinion based on raw information from multiple sources, not narrative. Continue to believe that it's more likely you don't understand something (until you actually do) then jumping to conspiracy.
coolerguy12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was using conspiracy theory facetiously. If you go against the official narrative you get labeled a conspiracy theorist even though the official narrative has been proven wrong over and over.
ChemAg15
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Serious question. I realize this is the covid board and not F16.

I think it's generally accepted that covid-19 did not occur naturally, meaning it came from a lab. Assuming the original virus came from a lab, what would keep a government from inventing new variants of Covid to keep the pandemic going longer if they felt it suited their purposes? Would virologists be able to tell that the virus was not mutating naturally? Would altering the virus leave behind some kind of fingerprint that would indicate it was unnatural? Is it possible to intentionally alter the virus so that it targets a different demographic than the original variant? Does this technology exist today to accomplish this?
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChemAg15 said:

Serious question. I realize this is the covid board and not F16.

I think it's generally accepted that covid-19 did not occur naturally, meaning it came from a lab. Assuming the original virus came from a lab, what would keep a government from inventing new variants of Covid to keep the pandemic going longer if they felt it suited their purposes? Would virologists be able to tell that the virus was not mutating naturally? Would altering the virus leave behind some kind of fingerprint that would indicate it was unnatural? Is it possible to intentionally alter the virus so that it targets a different demographic than the original variant? Does this technology exist today to accomplish this?
Generally accepted? Maybe by some parts of the population. Particularly those prone to conspiracy theories.

I think that it may have escaped from a lab because of errors in protocols, but the virus itself is a zoonosis that almost surely came from bats.
Old Buffalo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:


I think that it may have escaped from a lab because of errors in protocols, but the virus itself is a zoonosis that almost surely came from bats that were likely genetically modified in said laboratory


FIFY.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old Buffalo said:

Viruses don't become more deadly to a younger population over time....



Viruses can certainly become more deadly to any population over time.

Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.

There are definitely viruses that have become stronger. One such virus flat out destroyed my oldest brother -- it put him in a coma and he never recovered much when he finally came out of the coma.

If a more deadly variant emerges that can replicate better than the current variant, then there is an excellent chance that the more deadly variant will become more common than the current variant.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old Buffalo said:

eric76 said:


I think that it may have escaped from a lab because of errors in protocols, but the virus itself is a zoonosis that almost surely came from bats that were likely genetically modified in said laboratory


FIFY.
Paranoid conspiracy theorist?
ChemAg15
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:

ChemAg15 said:

Serious question. I realize this is the covid board and not F16.

I think it's generally accepted that covid-19 did not occur naturally, meaning it came from a lab. Assuming the original virus came from a lab, what would keep a government from inventing new variants of Covid to keep the pandemic going longer if they felt it suited their purposes? Would virologists be able to tell that the virus was not mutating naturally? Would altering the virus leave behind some kind of fingerprint that would indicate it was unnatural? Is it possible to intentionally alter the virus so that it targets a different demographic than the original variant? Does this technology exist today to accomplish this?
Generally accepted? Maybe by some parts of the population. Particularly those prone to conspiracy theories.

I think that it may have escaped from a lab because of errors in protocols, but the virus itself is a zoonosis that almost surely came from bats.


I'm confused. Since you think it came from a lab does that make you a conspiracy theorist too? Thanks for the non answer.
Old Buffalo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:


Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.
.


It's basic science. You should follow it.
planoaggie123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Maybe this doctor is wrong:


https://health.clevelandclinic.org/what-does-it-mean-that-the-coronavirus-is-mutating/amp/


Most of the time, mutations are so small that they don't significantly affect how the virus works, or they make the virus weaker, Dr. Rhoads says.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChemAg15 said:

eric76 said:

ChemAg15 said:

Serious question. I realize this is the covid board and not F16.

I think it's generally accepted that covid-19 did not occur naturally, meaning it came from a lab. Assuming the original virus came from a lab, what would keep a government from inventing new variants of Covid to keep the pandemic going longer if they felt it suited their purposes? Would virologists be able to tell that the virus was not mutating naturally? Would altering the virus leave behind some kind of fingerprint that would indicate it was unnatural? Is it possible to intentionally alter the virus so that it targets a different demographic than the original variant? Does this technology exist today to accomplish this?
Generally accepted? Maybe by some parts of the population. Particularly those prone to conspiracy theories.

I think that it may have escaped from a lab because of errors in protocols, but the virus itself is a zoonosis that almost surely came from bats.


I'm confused. Since you think it came from a lab does that make you a conspiracy theorist too? Thanks for the non answer.
It is common for labs to have samples on hand of whatever they are studying. That does not mean that they have modified those samples in any manner.

The procedures/processes at the labs should be such that the samples don't escape, but with human error and/or defective equipment and processes, that can happen.

What we don't have is an indication that the virus was modified.

By the way, did you know that another coronavirus has been identified that was affecting kids in Haiti.
From ProMed mailing list:

Quote:

"We found a coronavirus," he says. And not just any coronavirus, but
one that many scientists believe may be a new human pathogen -- likely
the 8th coronavirus known to cause disease in people. It turns out,
this coronavirus in the Haiti travelers has cropped up previously, on
the other side of the globe.

Please tell me how many virus research labs there are in Haiti?

A nearly identical coronavirus has also been identified in Malaysia from samples taken during the same time period. Are virus labs a big thing in Malaysia, too?

The point is that viruses and other pathogens being studied in labs should not escape. However, when they do escape, that doesn't mean that they were created in the labs.

The paranoid conspiracy theories are about the labs creating the viruses.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Old Buffalo said:

eric76 said:


Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.
.


It's basic science. You should follow it.
There is nothing in basic science that says that viruses have to become weaker.

They might become weaker, they might not become weaker. A weaker virus is not something selected for by evolution.

In evolution, what matters is whether or not the variant is better able to compete against other variants in reproducing. Whether or not the variant is weaker or stronger has nothing to do with it.

For grins, why don't you go find legitimate sources on evolution that claims that the viruses will become weaker. If you start right now, you'll still be looking when A&M wins its next national championship.
Another Doug
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm convinced that anyone who believes in some vast orchestrated conspiracy has never worked on a project with more than 2 people.
planoaggie123
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Edited. Too political.


[Thank you for the self edit. - Staff]
KidDoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
eric76 said:

Old Buffalo said:

eric76 said:


Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.
.


It's basic science. You should follow it.
There is nothing in basic science that says that viruses have to become weaker.

They might become weaker, they might not become weaker. A weaker virus is not something selected for by evolution.

In evolution, what matters is whether or not the variant is better able to compete against other variants in reproducing. Whether or not the variant is weaker or stronger has nothing to do with it.

For grins, why don't you go find legitimate sources on evolution that claims that the viruses will become weaker. If you start right now, you'll still be looking when A&M wins its next national championship.



If a virus is rapidly lethal, like Ebola, or gives symptoms quickly, like flu, then it does not spread efficiently and will select itself out over time. The most successful virus is highly contagious, non lethal, and has a long period of latency where it is infectious prior to symptoms.

That is where the concept of a virus tending to mutate to less lethal variants comes from. Plus a mutation is just a random RNA replication error so it could always become more dangerous. Over decades the more lethal variants tend to kill too many hosts and thus select themselves out. The best modern example is Spanish Flu in the early 1900s.

Edits: grammar/spelling- teach me to post on my phone without my reading glasses.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
eric76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not sure that applies to to diseases with a significant animal reservoir like Ebola. What matters to the evolution of Ebola is not how it spreads in man, but how it spreads in its animal reservoir.

We can see that with rabies. We have relatively few human rabies cases in the US each year and rabies is all but unknown in the UK and in Australia, but it does kill tens of thousands of people worldwide every year (I've seen figures ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 and higher and don't know which to believe). In spite of nearly 100% mortality (survivors are few and far between), there doesn't seem to be anything pushing it to weaken.

Also, for a disease with a low mortality rate probably wouldn't see much pressure to weaken significantly. If, like Ebola, the deaths occur well after it has had a chance to reproduce and propagate, then the death rate probably wouldn't affect it much.

Where the mortality would certainly matter is if the host is killed before the virus could reproduce.

Also, with today's modern medicine, we certainly react to it and work hard to stamp out diseases that do kill and so there could also be some pressure to weaken from that.

It's worth noting that in the latest Ebola outbreak, the researchers say that there was a mutation that strengthened the virus, not made it weaker. It is because of the modern medicine and efforts to deal with the outbreak that it ended. Assuming that the mutation occurred in humans, it hopefully did not make it back to the animal reservoir.
Gordo14
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KidDoc said:

eric76 said:

Old Buffalo said:

eric76 said:


Why do people keep repeating such nonsense? Is it because they don't have the vaguest understanding of evolution? There is NOTHING in evolution about viruses becoming weaker over time.
.


It's basic science. You should follow it.
There is nothing in basic science that says that viruses have to become weaker.

They might become weaker, they might not become weaker. A weaker virus is not something selected for by evolution.

In evolution, what matters is whether or not the variant is better able to compete against other variants in reproducing. Whether or not the variant is weaker or stronger has nothing to do with it.

For grins, why don't you go find legitimate sources on evolution that claims that the viruses will become weaker. If you start right now, you'll still be looking when A&M wins its next national championship.



If a virus is rapidly lethal, like Ebola, or gives symptoms quickly, like flu, then it does not spread efficiently and will select itself out over time. The most successful virus is highly contagious, non lethal, and has a long period of latency where it is infectious prior to symptoms.

That is where the concept of a virus tending to mutate to less lethal variants comes from. Plus a mutation is just a random RNA replication error so it could always become more dangerous. Over decades the more lethal variants tend to kill too many hosts and thus select themselves out. The best modern example is Spanish Flu in the early 1900s.

Edits: grammar/spelling- teach me to post on my phone without my reading glasses.


Agreed. But that doesn't mean that any given variant that pops up is less lethal - it just means that over time viruses that mutate a lot tend to become less lethal. But any random mutation could not follow that trend particularly if it comes with other characteristics that increase transmission for example. This nuance is missed by Old Buffalo's assertion that all variants become less lethal.

The truth is this variant looks to be so transmissible that we're going to just have to bite thr bullet and push through this. The vaccines and previous infection better provide at least partial immunity (which I think is very likely) or we're going to be in a world of **** in about a month. If it happens that there is real immune escape here this has the potential to be an absolute disaster. Again I think that's an extremely unlikely outcome but now is the time to prepare for this. Getting a vaccine now can only be a benefit (no matter your immunity status to current variants) and it'll be too late in the very near future.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.