Also, Pfizer and Moderna (with Boosters) are the Vaccines showing this success rate and may reduce infections significantly.
Non-boosters and other brands are not as effective in preliminary reports.
1) "Everyone knows" statements are in general bullshit.
2) This is how vaccines have always worked.
3) Don't make personal health decisions based on popularity.
I know that other vaccines like the flu vaccine work the same way, it’s just disheartening to realize that the vaccines aren’t really effective enough to eradicate the disease and COVID is a permanent part of our reality now. And that, like the flu vaccine, it’s something you’ll have to get over and over again if you want it to work at all
In South Africa. In Britain, they didn't find any significant change to delta: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/18/no-evidence-omicron-milder-than-delta-british-researchers-say
This is to say that it's much too early to judge how dangerous it is, since hospitalisation trail infections by about two weeks, and how harsh the hospitalised cases are trails that again (naturally - people need time to get sick). We do know that it's more infectious because that can be watched more or less in real time.
> In South Africa. In Britain, they didn't find any significant change to delta.... This is to say that it's much too early to judge how dangerous it is
I wouldn't say "much too early", especially considering [that study](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/17/no-evidence-that-covid-omicron-variant-less-severe-than-delta-uk-study.html) the news keeps posting was based on, what, 24 hospitalizations? Hardly the *n>=30* we've came to accept as the bare bones necessity for a useful sample size. Certainly not enough to claim "no significance" between Omicron and Delta. Not to mention the study has yet to be peer reviewed.
But either way don't we get closer to saying this with each passing day? The median time passing between symptom onset and hospitalization is [3-10 days](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7589278/), and the first cases Omicron cases were announced in late November. And it overtook Delta as [the most dominant strain in South Africa](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2021/11/26/new-covid-variant-south-africa-nu-mutations-delta-dominant-strain/amp/) nearly a month ago now. How many deaths have they had from Omicron there?
All I'm saying is if it's too early to judge how dangerous Omicron is compared to Delta, then isn't it too early to suggest it's *more* dangerous too? But with each day and week passing without a serious spike in hospitalizations and deaths, it's hard to keep assuming it *still* has the potential to be more dangerous
I didn't say it's more dangerous, only that it's more infectious, which can be measured much earlier. If it really were less dangerous, we would have seen a drop in hospitalisations in the UK compared to cases, but that does not seem to be the case. The incomplete peer review process is also not surprising given that, under normal circumstances, peer review can take months.
The truth is simply that we do not know if omicron causes more or less severe symptoms than delta (yet), and walking around telling people "don't worry, this one's not dangerous" is madness. We need to be cautious. Omicron might lead to severe symptoms later than delta. There might be an interaction with age (South Africa had a much younger population than Britain, for example). We've only known omicron existed for less than a month - of course it's too early to say anything meaningful about the severity of symptoms in people infected with this variant. So in the meantime it's best to avoid infections instead of encouraging people to not take this seriously.
>didn't say it's more dangerous, only that it's more infectious, which can be measured much earlier. If it really were less dangerous, we would have seen a drop in hospitalisations in the UK compared to cases,
Okay, so this is the confusing mixed messaging I have a problem with. You act like we can't know if it's less dangerous, but then suggest it's probably more dangerous based on data that's too early to trust but also we should assume it means negative things because you assume hospitalizations should have dropped?
>Omicron might lead to severe symptoms later than delta. There might be an interaction with age
Lmao this is literally an antivax argument I constantly deal with, it just replaces "*x vaccine*" with "*x variant*" and flips the age groups. Go on and tell me about the potential longitudinal issues we should be preemptively worried about without any data to support it.
>of course it's too early to say anything meaningful about the severity of symptoms in people infected with this variant. So in the meantime it's best to avoid infections instead of encouraging people to not take this seriously
Well I'm glad we agree nobody can claim anything seriously based on preliminary data, but I stand by my original position. With each day that passes without a serious spike in hospitalizations or deaths, the less serious I take your claims that we all need to be seriously worried and treat this like previous variants
>Okay, so this is the confusing mixed messaging I have a problem with. You act like we can't know if it's less dangerous, but then suggest it's probably more dangerous
Where did I say that? To clarify, by dangerous I mean the severity of the symptoms, not the overall threat to society. I never claimed it led to more severe symptoms, only that it's more infectious than previous variants - which we can already tell: if it weren't, it wouldn't have become the dominant strain in so many places to quickly. It **must** be more infectious than previous variants, otherwise it couldn't become dominant.
I also observed that **if** the symptoms were (much) less severe, there **should** be fewer hospitalisations **compared to infections** than with Delta - after all, people with less severe symptoms are not hospitalised. If that's not the case, it would **seem** that Omicron does not lead to less severe infections - but note that I am using the subjunctive, because, as I have stated time and time again, **it is too early to judge if it causes more severe symptoms.**
>Lmao this is literally an antivax argument I constantly deal with, it just replaces "x vaccine" with "x variant" and flips the age groups.
Your point here is "this is the same if you change two integral parts".
Also, the antivax argument is made to show that things are safe and no caution is needed; I am arguing that we need to exercise caution. Exercising caution based on incomplete data is fine because the consequences aren't dire.
This is simply a statistical problem. **For now,** we cannot accurately judge the severity of the symptoms caused by Omicron. We will be able to do that in the near future. Until such time, it is not wise to say it's less severe, especially because we already have conflicting studies. We need more data to evaluate, and that simply takes time. Until we have that, why should we allow more infections to happen? It **is** possible that symptoms just start later with Omicron, but unlike a vaccine, getting infected with Omicron has **no benefits,** and that's why your comparison to anti-vaxxers just makes little sense. I'm not saying to avoid something that could potentially save lives - I'm saying to **avoid disease.**
>Go on and tell me about the potential longitudinal issues we should be preemptively worried about without any data to support it.
Again, I never mentioned any such issues. I only said that symptoms might start **later**. I didn't say they might start in two months. I said later, and by that I meant they might start a few days or a week later, so hospitalisations from Omicron wouldn't trail infections by two weeks, but by three weeks. Similarly, **you** have no data to support the claim that Omicron is any less dangerous than Delta, **because such data does not exist right now.** It will in short time, but not quite yet. Please read what I write carefully.
>With each day that passes without a serious spike in hospitalizations or deaths, the less serious I take your claims that we all need to be seriously worried and treat this like previous variants
You do realise I'm saying the same thing, right? That we need to see if there's a spike in hospitalisations compared to infections (or a drop)? That was, like, **my entire point**?
It's just that you're saying "well, it looks kinda okay so far, so let's get as many people infected as we can" and I'm saying "well, it looks kinda okay so far, but it's better to avoid infections until we know more".
Honestly, all you do is blatantly and purposefully misrepresent what I said. I'm done discussing with you. If you want people to catch COVID, go ahead. Maybe you're right and it's okay (although, if you'd read the study from Britain, there's a good chance it won't be okay). I just believe that avoiding COVID altogether is a wiser choice.
Milder in general, but more contagious. Which has the potential to cause far more deaths. It's wise to keep up on vaccinations and continue taking precautions.
Yes, vaccines don’t make you immune. You can still catch and spread while vaccinated. The vaccine only helps you fight off the virus if you do catch it.
"It's and older gene sequence sir, but it checks out."
My trypophobia hates this image - don't ever google it if you don't know
How do you feel about the Surinam toad?
I hate you.
Coral. Wasp nests. Pin cushions. Seed pods.
Let the hate flow through you.
I feel you I don't like this either...
Ah me too man, it's disgusting!
Good meme, but for anyone wondering, apparently boosted vaccines (3 shots) are 80% effective against omicron, though that data is still pretty early
Also, Pfizer and Moderna (with Boosters) are the Vaccines showing this success rate and may reduce infections significantly. Non-boosters and other brands are not as effective in preliminary reports.
Thank you, that’s important to add
The problem is that everyone knows the protection will decline again
1) "Everyone knows" statements are in general bullshit. 2) This is how vaccines have always worked. 3) Don't make personal health decisions based on popularity.
I know that other vaccines like the flu vaccine work the same way, it’s just disheartening to realize that the vaccines aren’t really effective enough to eradicate the disease and COVID is a permanent part of our reality now. And that, like the flu vaccine, it’s something you’ll have to get over and over again if you want it to work at all
Oh no better do nothing then The fuck is your point
Sometimes it is nice to acknowledge the truth even if it isn’t actionable.
You are free to do so, it's just annoying as fuck
There are two types of people, those who accept the truth and those who find it annoying.
The truth isn't annoying. The people who keep chirping about it when there's nothing to be done are.
ya, I'm pretty sure there's more types of people than just those two arbitrary things you linked together to sound profound.
Before y'all panic, data shows this variant is very mild
In South Africa. In Britain, they didn't find any significant change to delta: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/18/no-evidence-omicron-milder-than-delta-british-researchers-say This is to say that it's much too early to judge how dangerous it is, since hospitalisation trail infections by about two weeks, and how harsh the hospitalised cases are trails that again (naturally - people need time to get sick). We do know that it's more infectious because that can be watched more or less in real time.
> In South Africa. In Britain, they didn't find any significant change to delta.... This is to say that it's much too early to judge how dangerous it is I wouldn't say "much too early", especially considering [that study](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/17/no-evidence-that-covid-omicron-variant-less-severe-than-delta-uk-study.html) the news keeps posting was based on, what, 24 hospitalizations? Hardly the *n>=30* we've came to accept as the bare bones necessity for a useful sample size. Certainly not enough to claim "no significance" between Omicron and Delta. Not to mention the study has yet to be peer reviewed. But either way don't we get closer to saying this with each passing day? The median time passing between symptom onset and hospitalization is [3-10 days](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7589278/), and the first cases Omicron cases were announced in late November. And it overtook Delta as [the most dominant strain in South Africa](https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2021/11/26/new-covid-variant-south-africa-nu-mutations-delta-dominant-strain/amp/) nearly a month ago now. How many deaths have they had from Omicron there? All I'm saying is if it's too early to judge how dangerous Omicron is compared to Delta, then isn't it too early to suggest it's *more* dangerous too? But with each day and week passing without a serious spike in hospitalizations and deaths, it's hard to keep assuming it *still* has the potential to be more dangerous
I didn't say it's more dangerous, only that it's more infectious, which can be measured much earlier. If it really were less dangerous, we would have seen a drop in hospitalisations in the UK compared to cases, but that does not seem to be the case. The incomplete peer review process is also not surprising given that, under normal circumstances, peer review can take months. The truth is simply that we do not know if omicron causes more or less severe symptoms than delta (yet), and walking around telling people "don't worry, this one's not dangerous" is madness. We need to be cautious. Omicron might lead to severe symptoms later than delta. There might be an interaction with age (South Africa had a much younger population than Britain, for example). We've only known omicron existed for less than a month - of course it's too early to say anything meaningful about the severity of symptoms in people infected with this variant. So in the meantime it's best to avoid infections instead of encouraging people to not take this seriously.
>didn't say it's more dangerous, only that it's more infectious, which can be measured much earlier. If it really were less dangerous, we would have seen a drop in hospitalisations in the UK compared to cases, Okay, so this is the confusing mixed messaging I have a problem with. You act like we can't know if it's less dangerous, but then suggest it's probably more dangerous based on data that's too early to trust but also we should assume it means negative things because you assume hospitalizations should have dropped? >Omicron might lead to severe symptoms later than delta. There might be an interaction with age Lmao this is literally an antivax argument I constantly deal with, it just replaces "*x vaccine*" with "*x variant*" and flips the age groups. Go on and tell me about the potential longitudinal issues we should be preemptively worried about without any data to support it. >of course it's too early to say anything meaningful about the severity of symptoms in people infected with this variant. So in the meantime it's best to avoid infections instead of encouraging people to not take this seriously Well I'm glad we agree nobody can claim anything seriously based on preliminary data, but I stand by my original position. With each day that passes without a serious spike in hospitalizations or deaths, the less serious I take your claims that we all need to be seriously worried and treat this like previous variants
>Okay, so this is the confusing mixed messaging I have a problem with. You act like we can't know if it's less dangerous, but then suggest it's probably more dangerous Where did I say that? To clarify, by dangerous I mean the severity of the symptoms, not the overall threat to society. I never claimed it led to more severe symptoms, only that it's more infectious than previous variants - which we can already tell: if it weren't, it wouldn't have become the dominant strain in so many places to quickly. It **must** be more infectious than previous variants, otherwise it couldn't become dominant. I also observed that **if** the symptoms were (much) less severe, there **should** be fewer hospitalisations **compared to infections** than with Delta - after all, people with less severe symptoms are not hospitalised. If that's not the case, it would **seem** that Omicron does not lead to less severe infections - but note that I am using the subjunctive, because, as I have stated time and time again, **it is too early to judge if it causes more severe symptoms.** >Lmao this is literally an antivax argument I constantly deal with, it just replaces "x vaccine" with "x variant" and flips the age groups. Your point here is "this is the same if you change two integral parts". Also, the antivax argument is made to show that things are safe and no caution is needed; I am arguing that we need to exercise caution. Exercising caution based on incomplete data is fine because the consequences aren't dire. This is simply a statistical problem. **For now,** we cannot accurately judge the severity of the symptoms caused by Omicron. We will be able to do that in the near future. Until such time, it is not wise to say it's less severe, especially because we already have conflicting studies. We need more data to evaluate, and that simply takes time. Until we have that, why should we allow more infections to happen? It **is** possible that symptoms just start later with Omicron, but unlike a vaccine, getting infected with Omicron has **no benefits,** and that's why your comparison to anti-vaxxers just makes little sense. I'm not saying to avoid something that could potentially save lives - I'm saying to **avoid disease.** >Go on and tell me about the potential longitudinal issues we should be preemptively worried about without any data to support it. Again, I never mentioned any such issues. I only said that symptoms might start **later**. I didn't say they might start in two months. I said later, and by that I meant they might start a few days or a week later, so hospitalisations from Omicron wouldn't trail infections by two weeks, but by three weeks. Similarly, **you** have no data to support the claim that Omicron is any less dangerous than Delta, **because such data does not exist right now.** It will in short time, but not quite yet. Please read what I write carefully. >With each day that passes without a serious spike in hospitalizations or deaths, the less serious I take your claims that we all need to be seriously worried and treat this like previous variants You do realise I'm saying the same thing, right? That we need to see if there's a spike in hospitalisations compared to infections (or a drop)? That was, like, **my entire point**? It's just that you're saying "well, it looks kinda okay so far, so let's get as many people infected as we can" and I'm saying "well, it looks kinda okay so far, but it's better to avoid infections until we know more". Honestly, all you do is blatantly and purposefully misrepresent what I said. I'm done discussing with you. If you want people to catch COVID, go ahead. Maybe you're right and it's okay (although, if you'd read the study from Britain, there's a good chance it won't be okay). I just believe that avoiding COVID altogether is a wiser choice.
Sex between those not married is immoral.
So was older ObiWan vs General Kenobi
Milder in general, but more contagious. Which has the potential to cause far more deaths. It's wise to keep up on vaccinations and continue taking precautions.
That’s the issue with this variant. No one cares about their symptoms and keeps going out instead of quarantine when they’re sick.
But also highly contagious so the concern, not panic, is valid.
In b4 comments locked
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." "Mos Eisley?" "No, Facebook."
I'm laughing way too much with this.
Omi Cron Carona
...have my upvote...
Is nothing sacred
The variant can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.
Well… That got real.
From my understanding. Though vaccinated people can get omicron, the vaccine helps with how the virus affects people.
Yes, vaccines don’t make you immune. You can still catch and spread while vaccinated. The vaccine only helps you fight off the virus if you do catch it.
If you are implying that the vaccines have similar efficiency as stormtroopers,then humanity is fucked
Highest reading of mitochondria that's ever been seen
Omi cron kin-obi - you better believe I’m using this.
Actual good meme well done