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

199100102104105116

Comments

  • Posts: 8,717 [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: 60,324 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.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,324 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.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭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: 60,324 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

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,227 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Viruses evolve zillions of times quicker than humans.


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



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,324 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.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭lbj666




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,227 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,227 ✭✭✭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.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,324 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?

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,302 ✭✭✭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, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭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: 60,324 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.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,131 ✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,227 ✭✭✭amandstu


    We have the capability to design and distribute a new vaccine tailored to the Omicron variant -might take 100 days I think.

    Would that be a good idea or would there be downsides to that tactic?



  • Posts: 8,717 [Deleted User]


    No, some crazy site's interpretation of German data is drawing an incorrect (biased) conclusion. Any vaccine efficacy calculations that include people unable to be vaccinated (kids) will always be incorrect.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,020 ✭✭✭boetstark


    Just looking for people opinions.

    I was notified as a close contact on Monday 27th. I started to develop a sore throat on Tuesday so got a PCR test on Wednesday which came back negative. I did feel the swab hardly touched my throat, I have a terrible gag reflex. Same with nostril.

    Thing have been feeling worse since Friday. Headache, totally stuffed nose and dry cough. Antigen test is negative but my gp wants me to have another PCR test. I'm fully vaccinated, early fifties with no underlying condition. Could this be a cold / flu. I'm afraid to return to work as some colleagues in a small office are medically vulnerable, and would probably freak out. Love to know at this stage if it's covid or not 100%.

    Happy 2022 to all



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Follow the GP's advice and get another test. And don't go to work. Work from home or call in sick - because you're sick. Whether you pass covid or flu to your colleagues, you're not doing your boss any favours.

    2 years ago it was normal to go to work and tell your colleagues you have the flu, but now it's different. It might go back to the old way where we went to work with flu, but things are different for now.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 8,717 [Deleted User]


    Repeating it over and over does not make it more true.

    You've taken this from some virus-ridden website because you are incapable of reading and understanding the paper itself, and you are assuming that the conclusion drawn on this virus-ridden website is correct only because it suits your conspiracy-driven agenda.

    A basic understanding of vaccines would tell you that what you said makes absolutely no sense, and a Junior Cert scientist student would laugh at you if you said it.

    But yes, I, as a scientist, am probably incorrect about this scientific paper and you, as, well, whatever you are, are instead correct.

    I'm sure it will be breaking news any moment now.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,690 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,446 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    "Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome" from the COVID vaccines🤣, @[Deleted User], you are so far over the shark, the shark is a dot to you.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Your telling some other poster a few pages back to just keep taking boosters told me all I needed to know about your being a scientist..



  • Posts: 8,717 [Deleted User]


    Yes. As the scientific community agrees that we should continue to take boosters as long as the evidence suggests that it is beneficial, that it indeed what myself and the scientific community say. I'm glad you have come to your senses.

    Thank you for addressing nothing in my post as always.

    Would you like to add some more posts that will eventually be deleted for spreading misinformation, or would you prefer to save time and disappear back to your fellow brethren in the conspiracy theories forum?



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,324 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    For the craic read the comments to see full mental cases on view. 😁

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 343 ✭✭Shilock


    What I think is funny there's a lot of people who suffer from hay fever or just a bit chesty in damp weather. If someone who was a bit chesty the odd morning are they expected to isolate and get their noses drilled for covid regularly, imagine if this was the new normal....

    Anyone who suffers from anxiety or hypochondriacs would be riddled with fear and constantly catastrophizing their judgement. And you'll always get a nutter or control freak in a household or on the job telling everyone to go get tested ....

    It's all a bit nuts isn't it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,065 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Well, right now it's playing to hypochondriacs. But it also happens to be the sensible thing to do at the moment. Once things calm down it might go back to normal, and it will certainly go back towards normal.

    I doubt it will be normal to go to work and casually tell the people you're getting a cuppa with that you have the flu. I think that might be a lasting legacy of covid. But for now it makes sense to err on the side of caution and not go to work and get a covid test if you have covid/flu symptoms.

    Post edited by El_Duderino 09 on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 343 ✭✭Shilock


    I think it's a great thing that people should stay at home if they've a respiratory illness. And about time that there's leniency towards people who need time off for colds etc

    I can operate at probably 80% if I've a cold, the flu wipes the floor with me. I'm basically man flu +++ just totally thrown down and zero energy...hot and sweaty.

    Then again you'll have wasters who'll take advantage and just call and say they're sniffly, and if they get paid sick leave it'll be a good excuse to lie low and chill out...

    All the variables get me, I wish I was one dimensional or black and white lol



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,401 ✭✭✭corkie


    Omicron is displacing delta science

    Ignore this post if you don't like Dr. John Campbell's content?

    ⓘ "At some point something inside me just clicked and I realized that I didn't have to deal with anyone's bullshit ever again."
    » “mundus sine caesaribus” «



Advertisement