COVID-19 Outbreak Information Updates (Reboot) [over 150.000,000 US cases (est.), 6,422,520 US hospitilizations, 1,148,691 US deaths.] (17 Viewers)

[DaveXA]

My 19 year old son tested positive. He's been sick the last 2 days. Nothing serious, but he can't work for at least 5 days. So that's kind of a bummer. Wife stayed home today. I think we both have it, although it seems very mild at this point. Scratchy throat, stuffy nose. That's about it. I'm assuming we have it, but since I'm working at home and wife calling out sick, we're not gonna get tested. We just assume we have it and will stay put for a week. I'm surprised it took this long since one of my daughters had it a few weeks ago but no one else got sick.

 

[bclemms]

Uncounted: Inaccurate death certificates across the country hide the true toll of COVID-19 • Missouri Independent

In some counties, half of the spike in deaths during the pandemic is attributed to COVID-19. Researchers say that points to an undercount

missouriindependent.com

 

[SaintInBucLand]

Recently read a story out of the UK where many health professionals are suggesting suspending vaccines to children ages 12-18. Will see if I can find it.

Did run across this story in the Atlantic.

Should Teen Boys Get Boosted?

Third shots for adolescent boys and young men were already a hard sell. Then came Omicron.

www.theatlantic.com

Found the UK article.

Government urged to take caution in giving jabs to 'low risk' children

More than thirty doctors, scientists and MP's have signed a joint letter to the government's vaccine watchdog urging it to "reassess" the Covid vaccine rollout for healthy 12-15-year-olds following new data showing potentially serious harms of the jab are likely to outweigh any potential benefits.

www.express.co.uk

 

[faceman]

Uncounted: Inaccurate death certificates across the country hide the true toll of COVID-19 • Missouri Independent

In some counties, half of the spike in deaths during the pandemic is attributed to COVID-19. Researchers say that points to an undercount

missouriindependent.com

Coroners should be appointed not elected. WTF is this? The Coroner in Ms. used to hold the title of ranger. It meant he
or she was the only person with the power to arrest a county sheriff. It didn't matter if they had a medical background.

 

[Saint_Ward]

Uncounted: Inaccurate death certificates across the country hide the true toll of COVID-19 • Missouri Independent

In some counties, half of the spike in deaths during the pandemic is attributed to COVID-19. Researchers say that points to an undercount

missouriindependent.com

Wow. Not shocked though. Some, outright don't want to. Others, just don't have the resources.

Cape Girardeau County in Missouri; Hinds and Rankin counties in Mississippi; and Lafayette Parish in Louisiana are four of the 10 counties with the greatest spike in deaths not attributed to COVID-19. In those communities, official COVID-19 deaths account for just half of the increase in deaths in 2020.

If official figures are to be believed, in Lafayette Parish deaths at home from heart disease increased by 20% from 2019 to 2020. Deaths from hypertensive heart disease, or heart ailments due to high blood pressure, doubled and are on track to remain that high in 2021.

These sudden, unexplained jumps in deaths at home – from diseases with symptoms similar to COVID-19 – point to a substantial undercount of the pandemic’s toll, said Andrew Stokes, a professor in the Department of Global Health at the Boston University School of Public Health.

Lafayette Parish’s chief death investigator, Keith Talamo, acknowledged that most people who die at home are pronounced dead over the phone. He said his office lacks the resources to test every death for COVID-19. And, in a significant departure from widely accepted death investigation practices, Talamo said he typically writes down “what the families tell us” and doesn’t push further.

In and around Jackson, Mississippi, deaths from heart attacks at home doubled in 2020 and are on pace to hit a similar level in 2021. The Rankin County coroner said he wrestles with family members who first argue against citing COVID-19 on death certificates, then reverse course when they learn that the federal government pays for burials of people who die from the coronavirus.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

Vaccine Makers Pursue Omicron-Targeted Shots That Health Officials Say Might Not Be Needed

While industry executives foresee an eventual need for doses targeting the new strain or potential future variants, U.S. officials say current evidence doesn’t support rolling them out and cite practical reasons not to.

www.wsj.com

About to see Big Pharma lobby hard.

 

[bclemms]

I'm talking about the same, and I'm working on the assumption that they may be similar enough for the same reasoning to continue to apply. When we're talking about a variant of the same virus, it would seem unwise to simply assume the opposite. The presumption should, generally, be that the potential for the risk is similar; if we wait for further data, particularly for data on conditions that can take a while to develop, very substantial numbers of people will have already been exposed to the potential risk at that point.

In terms of the vaccine's effectiveness against infection, I said it reduces the risk, not prevents. And it can still substantially do that; UK vaccine surveillance (pdf) indicates that with Omicron, 2 doses of Pfizer or Moderna has 65-70% effectiveness waning to 10% by 20 weeks after the second dose, and after a booster dose, from 65-75% effectiveness dropping to 55 to 65% by 5-9 weeks and to 45-50% from 10+ weeks.

Bearing in mind that the risk of severe effects from illness is a combination of the risk of infection and the risk of severe effects if infected, even that reduced level of effectiveness against infection is significant.

I'd add that the data also indicates that the vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation is also substantially higher after second doses and boosters ("When combined with vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease this was equivalent to vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation of 58% after 1 dose, 64% 2-24 weeks after dose 2, 44% 25+ weeks after dose 2, and 92% dropping to 83% 10+ weeks after a booster dose", from the previously linked report). That's in terms of the general population, so the impact of that will vary with base levels of risk, but the relative difference is likely to still be present across the age demographics.

I do find it generally odd to consider the risk of death or severe illness in children from Covid to be 'close to non-existent', while regarding the lower risk of typically mild myocarditis from vaccination to be more significant. From my point of view, vaccination in children represents an overall reduction in risk, and while that is, relatively a low to very low risk to start off with, depending on whether you're considering risk of long-term effects such as long Covid, risk of hospitalisation, or mortality, especially in the case of the latter it's a very low risk of potentially very high consequence. So I would still see it worthwhile to further lower that risk through vaccination, and overall, taking everything into account (risk of severe illness, mortality, and long Covid) speaking of children generally, I can't personally see how the balance swings any way other than towards vaccination.

It's certainly true to say it's less significant a difference in children than it is in the older population, where the reduction in risk is a reduction of a much more substantial risk, but it's still a reduction in risk nevertheless.


But having said all that, in that specific instance rather than generally, I definitely wouldn't vaccinate him 3 days after infection; I think generally the advice is to wait 12 weeks after recovery in the first place. And family history of particular conditions takes the consideration out of the general case, which could swing either way, depending on whether it's considered to present an increased risk from Covid more so than from vaccination, or vice versa.

Again, all of these statistics and data are working off the assumption that Omicron and Delta are the same. So far, we've seen dozens of studies come out from many different countries, while none perfect, they are pointing towards the same thing and that is a significant reduction in severe disease with Omicron. We've watched the peaks come and go in numerous countries and starting now to see it in some states. In each country we started seeing the same thing, a huge spike in hospitalizations but in each country the data was corrupt due to incidental covid cases indicating far greater communtiy spread than testing is indicating and less severe cases pushing from both ends of the spectrum. All around the world we are seeing less severe cases, less time in the hospital, less pneumonia, faster incubation, faster recovery, milder symptoms and a completely different set of symptoms. We all freaked out when the news first broke because it mutated far more than anyone expected possible with a single mutation. The mutations in the spike protein were expected to impact vaccine efficiency. It shouldn't be a suprise when Omicron evaded immune response so well. Anecdotal evidence is widely available in this thread. So many here avoided covid for so long. So many are double vaxxed and boosted. We're all sick. This anecdotal evidence extends globally and is now pushing beyond the point of anecdotal into many studies showing the same thing, rapidly decreasing prevention of transmission. At what point do we change our mindset?

Let's look beyond that.
Rhode Island hit the highest cases per capita recorded at any state and any time in the pandemic earlier this week at 657 cases per 100k. Rhode Island is the 2nd most vaccinated state in the country at 77% fully vaccinated and over 90% with at least one dose. Ny 381, Mass hit 358. That's the top three 7 day moving averages recorded in any state since the start of the pandemic. All three are in the top 5 of percent fully vaccinated.

Portugal is the most impressive. They are the most vaccinated country in the world with 93% vaccinated and they are on a 7 day moving average of over 350 per 100k. Australia is quickly becoming a spectacle. I'm not sure how else to put it. The chart looks more like an altitude graph for a space launch. It's just from 0 to vertical extending through every column. They are one of the more vaccinated and restricted countries in the world and even trying some drachonian measures. The same trends with Delta in regards to areas in the deep freeze of winter catching a break during the other variants, not with Omicron. Islands being able to hold off infection like past variants? Nope. Low latitude countries, got them too.

I'm not sitting over here cherry picking data. Everywhere in Europe and the US is looking really similar despite vaccine status or mandates. The mandates that may have worked in the past, Omicron just runs right through because it's too contagious to stop. That UK vaccine surveillance is showing 70% effectiveness that wanes quickly but all the data on Omicron is incomplete and doesn't rule out any sort of causation.

When delta was circulating the correlation between vaccination rates and states with high covid counts were very obvious. None of us were surprised when states like Ms, Al, Ga, Fl, Tx, Tn, Ar, Mo and Ky were throwing up huge numbers while states like Vermont, NY, RI, Ma, Cn, DC and other states with high vaccination rates were looking down the map at stupid arse states in the South, rightfully so. Omicron completely obliterated that. Why is it ok for us to point at that and showcase how wonderful the vaccines worked but now that the shoe is on the other foot we ignore the data and continue to point back to the good ole days when vaccines prevented infection at a realtively high rate?

We both agree on the effectiveness against severe illness and death. This is not even debateable and quite frankly, any adult that isn't vaccinated at this point is highly unlikely to get vaccinated and my thoughts on that crowd are really well documented.

I do consider the severe illness risk of children under the age of 15 to be extremely low risk. I also find the side effects of the vaccine to be extremely low risk. I do see in studies where greater than 90% of myocarditis cases present after the 2nd shot of the vaccine. So my choice was to get my son the first shot, reduce the already really low risk of a severe outcome by another 60% while reducing the already low risk of myocarditis by an additional 900%. I'm not advocating against parents deciding to get the vaccines for their children. I had plans to get both of my kids double vaxxed then the booster when the time was right but Omicron put those plans on hold. They both got their first shots in late November. Perhaps if they got their second shots it would have prevented them getting infected but it didn't stop it from getting me, my wife, her step father (round 3 for him with two vaccines and a booster). Didn't stop it from getting my mom and quite frankly damn near everyone I know regardless of vaccine status or previous infection. I do think the pressure and guidance being placed on children should take a longer look. I got really upset at the shifting of the goal posts when one side was calling covid a hoax, the flu, denying masks, anitvaxxing, etc. Now I'm seeing that same shifting of the goal post on vaccines with kids. The newest data coming out suggests that myocarditis was undercounted in initial studies by a pretty big margin. The newest data coming out says that Omicron is really efficient at breaking through vaccines. The new data coming out shows that Omicron is far less severe by nearly a magnitude of 10. Doesn't mean it isn't going to take a toll, it certainly has and will due to the overwhelming numbers.


Next, look how quickly efficacy falls off on the vaccine. Why are we trying to get booster shots in arms on the backside of the peak in the lowest risk subsectors? Using model guidance, there is a really high degree of certainty that in a couple of weeks we are going to be watching case numbers running down towards low background numbers and 20 weeks out we are going to be hitting some of the lowest numbers we've hit in 18 months. This period is when current 2nd and booster shots will be hitting max efficacy. Then when the next wave cranks up that effectiveness will have already waned. We are getting gas on a full tank. It's a shot we could be putting in the arm of someone that has the need for it another country which helps reduce the risk of death and reduce the risk of the next variant. Next, an Omicron vaccine will be out as early as March as well as a lot more data to guide us in the right direction so I just don't see how it wouldn't be prudent to hit the pause button.


For my son specifically, it's a very obvious position to sit back and wait. I'll wait until I start seeing signs of a new wave before reacting at all. For my daughter, I'm much more likely to get a second shot but have no need for it at the moment given the recent case and a coming rapid fall back to background levels. Perhaps I'm overreacting since Myocarditis led to my brother having a heart transplant in his 30's which led to some pretty extreme daily pain and immunity issues which ultimately ended in suicide. I'm also quite aware of the myocarditis risk from the virus as my niece is just now getting back to normal from severe myocarditis after covid in the spring of 2020.

 

[faceman]

Wow. Not shocked though. Some, outright don't want to. Others, just don't have the resources.

This goes back to the video you posted from Dr Z a few months ago. This is what Covid does to the unvaccinated
with co-morbidities. I mentioned how MS led the nation in covid deaths per capita during the Delta wave and met
with a few comments saying there were other factors involved. That was true,but far and away the biggest one was
those who perished were mostly unvaccinated.

 

[bclemms]

This goes back to the video you posted from Dr Z a few months ago. This is what Covid does to the unvaccinated
with co-morbidities. I mentioned how MS led the nation in covid deaths per capita during the Delta wave and met
with a few comments saying there were other factors involved. That was true,but far and away the biggest one was
those who perished were mostly unvaccinated.

They don't just lead the nation, if Mississippi was a country it would be in a really tight race with Peru for the highest death rate globally.

 

[faceman]

They don't just lead the nation, if Mississippi was a country it would be in a really tight race with Peru for the highest death rate globally.

We paid a very heavy price. I can't say how I really feel here without getting political. I will say I follow our 2 Senators
and my district reps FB pages and it's obvious most of their followers are still fighting the civil war.

 

[Optimus Prime]

You're ready to swap your old cloth masks for N95s as some experts recommend, but the higher price tag and two little words -- "single use" -- are giving you pause. How long can you really wear an N95 and still protect yourself and others from Covid-19 risk?

"I wear mine for a week," said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech.

An N95 mask's material and filtration ability aren't "going to degrade unless you physically rub it or poke holes in it," Marr said. "You'd have to be in really polluted air ... for several days before it lost its ability to filter out particles. So, you can really wear them for a long time.

"People have been talking about 40 hours -- I think that's fine. Really, it's going to get gross from your face or the straps will get too loose or maybe break before you're going to lose filtration ability," she added.

The reason why N95 masks are designated as single use is because they're categorized as medical masks, said Erin Bromage, an associate professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

In medical settings, health care workers change masks more frequently to avoid "cross-contaminating a patient room with equipment that was worn in a room of an infectious person and then moving to the next room and bringing that infection with you," he said. "When you then take a medical-grade thing that's single-use and put it in the general public, we're not worried about you cross-contaminating different environments you're being in. It's really about providing protection to you."

N95s "used to be only $1 or so each," Bromage added, but prices have recently spiked as public demand for these masks has increased amid Omicron variant concerns. If you safely reuse N95s, you're getting at least two or three days of use from one mask, Bromage added, but "I realize that it still adds up to an expense."

Some local public health departments, such as the Maryland and Milwaukee health departments, are offering free N95 masks.

Here's what else you should know about safely wearing and reusing N95 masks...............

MSN

 

[bonnjer]

Some interesting parallels between Covid and the 1890s Russian "flu".

Was the Russian flu a ‘coronavirus’? What the 1890s pandemic tells us about how Covid might end

The fourth wave of the pandemic, like the three that preceded it, was marked by a dry cough, an intense headache and what one medical correspondent described as “a feverish malaise”. Soon, both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition were confined to their sickbeds and London...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Doug B]

You're ready to swap your old cloth masks for N95s as some experts recommend, but the higher price tag and two little words -- "single use" -- are giving you pause.

Thanks for posting this article.

The expense and the difficulty procuring N95s has kept me in cloth masks (Rolls Royce cloth masks to be sure) so far.

Are people now able to easily find N95s in big -box stores, especially in the New Orleans area? Or are they still items that pretty much have to be ordered online still?

While I can and have ordered things online ... I consider ordering N95s online as something of a barrier due to how long they seem (seemed?) to take to come in. If the logjam is broken, and you can now readily online-order N95s and get them within a few days ... that changes the calculus.

 

[Sailorsaint]

You're ready to swap your old cloth masks for N95s as some experts recommend, but the higher price tag and two little words -- "single use" -- are giving you pause. How long can you really wear an N95 and still protect yourself and others from Covid-19 risk?

"I wear mine for a week," said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech.

An N95 mask's material and filtration ability aren't "going to degrade unless you physically rub it or poke holes in it," Marr said. "You'd have to be in really polluted air ... for several days before it lost its ability to filter out particles. So, you can really wear them for a long time.

"People have been talking about 40 hours -- I think that's fine. Really, it's going to get gross from your face or the straps will get too loose or maybe break before you're going to lose filtration ability," she added.

The reason why N95 masks are designated as single use is because they're categorized as medical masks, said Erin Bromage, an associate professor of biology at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

In medical settings, health care workers change masks more frequently to avoid "cross-contaminating a patient room with equipment that was worn in a room of an infectious person and then moving to the next room and bringing that infection with you," he said. "When you then take a medical-grade thing that's single-use and put it in the general public, we're not worried about you cross-contaminating different environments you're being in. It's really about providing protection to you."

N95s "used to be only $1 or so each," Bromage added, but prices have recently spiked as public demand for these masks has increased amid Omicron variant concerns. If you safely reuse N95s, you're getting at least two or three days of use from one mask, Bromage added, but "I realize that it still adds up to an expense."

Some local public health departments, such as the Maryland and Milwaukee health departments, are offering free N95 masks.

Here's what else you should know about safely wearing and reusing N95 masks...............

MSN

But, what about reusable masks with replaceable filters?

 

[Arathrael]

Again, all of these statistics and data are working off the assumption that Omicron and Delta are the same. So far, we've seen dozens of studies come out from many different countries, while none perfect, they are pointing towards the same thing and that is a significant reduction in severe disease with Omicron. We've watched the peaks come and go in numerous countries and starting now to see it in some states. In each country we started seeing the same thing, a huge spike in hospitalizations but in each country the data was corrupt due to incidental covid cases indicating far greater communtiy spread than testing is indicating and less severe cases pushing from both ends of the spectrum. All around the world we are seeing less severe cases, less time in the hospital, less pneumonia, faster incubation, faster recovery, milder symptoms and a completely different set of symptoms. We all freaked out when the news first broke because it mutated far more than anyone expected possible with a single mutation. The mutations in the spike protein were expected to impact vaccine efficiency. It shouldn't be a suprise when Omicron evaded immune response so well. Anecdotal evidence is widely available in this thread. So many here avoided covid for so long. So many are double vaxxed and boosted. We're all sick. This anecdotal evidence extends globally and is now pushing beyond the point of anecdotal into many studies showing the same thing, rapidly decreasing prevention of transmission. At what point do we change our mindset?

Let's look beyond that.
Rhode Island hit the highest cases per capita recorded at any state and any time in the pandemic earlier this week at 657 cases per 100k. Rhode Island is the 2nd most vaccinated state in the country at 77% fully vaccinated and over 90% with at least one dose. Ny 381, Mass hit 358. That's the top three 7 day moving averages recorded in any state since the start of the pandemic. All three are in the top 5 of percent fully vaccinated.

Portugal is the most impressive. They are the most vaccinated country in the world with 93% vaccinated and they are on a 7 day moving average of over 350 per 100k. Australia is quickly becoming a spectacle. I'm not sure how else to put it. The chart looks more like an altitude graph for a space launch. It's just from 0 to vertical extending through every column. They are one of the more vaccinated and restricted countries in the world and even trying some drachonian measures. The same trends with Delta in regards to areas in the deep freeze of winter catching a break during the other variants, not with Omicron. Islands being able to hold off infection like past variants? Nope. Low latitude countries, got them too.

I'm not sitting over here cherry picking data. Everywhere in Europe and the US is looking really similar despite vaccine status or mandates. The mandates that may have worked in the past, Omicron just runs right through because it's too contagious to stop. That UK vaccine surveillance is showing 70% effectiveness that wanes quickly but all the data on Omicron is incomplete and doesn't rule out any sort of causation.

When delta was circulating the correlation between vaccination rates and states with high covid counts were very obvious. None of us were surprised when states like Ms, Al, Ga, Fl, Tx, Tn, Ar, Mo and Ky were throwing up huge numbers while states like Vermont, NY, RI, Ma, Cn, DC and other states with high vaccination rates were looking down the map at stupid arse states in the South, rightfully so. Omicron completely obliterated that. Why is it ok for us to point at that and showcase how wonderful the vaccines worked but now that the shoe is on the other foot we ignore the data and continue to point back to the good ole days when vaccines prevented infection at a realtively high rate?

We both agree on the effectiveness against severe illness and death. This is not even debateable and quite frankly, any adult that isn't vaccinated at this point is highly unlikely to get vaccinated and my thoughts on that crowd are really well documented.

I do consider the severe illness risk of children under the age of 15 to be extremely low risk. I also find the side effects of the vaccine to be extremely low risk. I do see in studies where greater than 90% of myocarditis cases present after the 2nd shot of the vaccine. So my choice was to get my son the first shot, reduce the already really low risk of a severe outcome by another 60% while reducing the already low risk of myocarditis by an additional 900%. I'm not advocating against parents deciding to get the vaccines for their children. I had plans to get both of my kids double vaxxed then the booster when the time was right but Omicron put those plans on hold. They both got their first shots in late November. Perhaps if they got their second shots it would have prevented them getting infected but it didn't stop it from getting me, my wife, her step father (round 3 for him with two vaccines and a booster). Didn't stop it from getting my mom and quite frankly damn near everyone I know regardless of vaccine status or previous infection. I do think the pressure and guidance being placed on children should take a longer look. I got really upset at the shifting of the goal posts when one side was calling covid a hoax, the flu, denying masks, anitvaxxing, etc. Now I'm seeing that same shifting of the goal post on vaccines with kids. The newest data coming out suggests that myocarditis was undercounted in initial studies by a pretty big margin. The newest data coming out says that Omicron is really efficient at breaking through vaccines. The new data coming out shows that Omicron is far less severe by nearly a magnitude of 10. Doesn't mean it isn't going to take a toll, it certainly has and will due to the overwhelming numbers.


Next, look how quickly efficacy falls off on the vaccine. Why are we trying to get booster shots in arms on the backside of the peak in the lowest risk subsectors? Using model guidance, there is a really high degree of certainty that in a couple of weeks we are going to be watching case numbers running down towards low background numbers and 20 weeks out we are going to be hitting some of the lowest numbers we've hit in 18 months. This period is when current 2nd and booster shots will be hitting max efficacy. Then when the next wave cranks up that effectiveness will have already waned. We are getting gas on a full tank. It's a shot we could be putting in the arm of someone that has the need for it another country which helps reduce the risk of death and reduce the risk of the next variant. Next, an Omicron vaccine will be out as early as March as well as a lot more data to guide us in the right direction so I just don't see how it wouldn't be prudent to hit the pause button.


For my son specifically, it's a very obvious position to sit back and wait. I'll wait until I start seeing signs of a new wave before reacting at all. For my daughter, I'm much more likely to get a second shot but have no need for it at the moment given the recent case and a coming rapid fall back to background levels. Perhaps I'm overreacting since Myocarditis led to my brother having a heart transplant in his 30's which led to some pretty extreme daily pain and immunity issues which ultimately ended in suicide. I'm also quite aware of the myocarditis risk from the virus as my niece is just now getting back to normal from severe myocarditis after covid in the spring of 2020.

The UK data on vaccine effectiveness against Omicron is pretty robust at this point, covering hundreds of thousands of cases. It also indicates that the protection against symptomatic disease holds up for longer after a booster (e.g. for one example the protection, against specifically Omicron, 5-9 weeks after a Pfizer booster is higher than the protection 5-9 weeks after the second dose of Pfizer), and that the protection against hospitalisation is higher after a booster than it is after a second dose. Those are all factors to take into account when considering the merit of boosters.

I appreciate you're not cherry-picking data, but I think you're making a lot of assumptions in how you're interpreting that data. We know that with some degree of evasion, two doses and a substantial waning effect meant vaccination effectiveness against infection and symptomatic disease from Omicron was very low for many people when Omicron waves began. The data shows the protection across the board (including against hospitalisation) is higher after boosters, especially for protection against infection and symptomatic disease. Given that boosters have typically been given out during the Omicron wave, rather than prior to, it doesn't seem robust to consider the rapid increase in cases as indicative of the merit of boosters; it would seem more reasonable to consider that the rollout of boosters has had an impact on the extent and rate of decline of the wave.

I mean, put it this way, the data indicates that I, unboosted, with two doses of Moderna six months ago, had around 20% protection against symptomatic disease from Omicron when the Omicron wave started in the UK. With a Pfizer booster, that's now about 65%. The Delta figures are around 80% and just under 100% respectively. While that certainly represents a still significant chance of infection, particularly with Omicron being dominant and generally more transmissible, that's still a significant difference that will have an effect both in terms of individual risk, and in terms of reducing the overall spread and impact thereof as more people are boosted.

There are reasonable arguments to be made about the timing of boosters, and the merits of revised vaccines, but those would have to account for both the significance and duration of increased protection of boosters, and the practicality of rolling out boosters and new vaccines in advance of a new wave. Given how fast a new wave can arrive, and in particular in nations that are reluctant to implement other mitigations to otherwise slow the spread, I think there's a limit in how practical that can be.

I do think the argument that boosters aren't necessarily the optimum usage of vaccines when much of the world has extremely poor vaccine coverage is a reasonable one; however, as I've said before, I don't think those are inherently exclusive (in principle we can do both), and that some of the reasons we're not doing both are also why doses not being used for in wealthier nations aren't actually going to those parts of the world that need them.

I'll also reiterate that we do not know the full impact of Omicron. We do know it has less severe impact on the lungs, which was a primary driver of admissions to hospitals and ICUs, but we don't yet know, for example, whether it has less impact in terms of damage to other organs, myocarditis, long Covid. I don't think it's wise to assume that because it's substantially less likely to cause one severe effect, that it also doesn't have other, different, impacts. For example, we saw in earlier waves that myocarditis rates increased within three months of having Covid. We're only really two months into Omicron.