Omicron Data

I wholly disagree that an inaccurate warning is better than no warning at all.

I'm unsure why this is contrived, the implication in your post was clear that the mental health impact of it was of no relevance, especially given the follow up.

Anyway we shall agree to disagree.

You can be concerned about COVID impact and advocate for changes to public health policy without wilfully exaggerating it's risk, knowing (or ignorant to, not much better) the impact it could have on mental health.

Physical AND mental health = health.

(ps suicides are a bad proxy for anxiety, given anxiety is not classically associated diagnostically with suicidal ideation)

So because it's not *more* damaging (which no one ever said), the damage isnt something to be concerned about?

Today for example I've already seen someone telling everyone who will listen that 2% of all people infected with COVID will die from it. 50x the actual risk. Is this ok? Do we think that this false information is cost neutral or negative to those already anxious about COVID?

You can be concerned about COVID impact and advocate for changes to public health policy without wilfully exaggerating it's risk, knowing (or ignorant to, not much better) the impact it could have on mental health.

Physical AND mental health = health.

So on average viral clearance (here defined as PCR Ct value >40) decreased from 9.3 to 6.6 days.

Here you go, recent (start of October publish dat)!

www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Random thought of the day - it always amazes me how many people here are multilingual, and able to post in multiple languages (although I'm sure it goes way beyond social media 😅).

Utmost respect from me!

Incidentally the number of people who have messaged me directly talking (at length) about their mental health struggles to do with this is really surprising.

Just put a thread up on twitter.

Concerned about the recent spike in COVID discussion again (JN.1 related? COVID inquiry related perhaps as mentioned by @thoughtfulnz.bsky.social ?) and how impactful this can be on mental health.

Twitter is a deeply unhealthy place for some to be on.

Everything I've seen implies effectively no change.

Incredibly difficult to quantify though amidst a background of changing immunity, and particularly (and often understated) the shift in age profile of infection.

But probably implies no *sizeable* shift at least.

Which itself massively stems from terrible reporting like "the forever plague"

However, it probably does give it more exploration space.

Personally...I dunno. It's a bit simplistic. Firstly ACE is being used as an almost linear proxy for transmissibility and that's not the case. Second, it assumes a more linear reduction in ACE post mutation, when that's not the case either.

So in actually asked about this. The rationale is that ACE is used as a proxy for transmissibility, but only to a point (stupidly high binding doesn't increase it any further ). But, starting at a high level means evasive mutations can cost binding but not cripple the variant.

Even if the views differed, that's not "attacking", that's disagreeing. Which is kinda one of the most fundamental requirements of scientific progress.

What a weird take from this person.

Is it not more the entry method that causes greater severity, rather than variations in the level of ACE (especially when memory cells are established)?

Not a simple one measure metric either way of course.

The question is, does it sustain at higher absolute numbers.

Looks like some pretty high growth numbers (in absolute terms, unsure on relative) in England too.

So yes looking less likely to be outbreak based (solely at least).

Yeh JN.1 looking interesting.

Appreciate that, thank you ☺️

Hi BlueSky!

Thanks @tah-sci.bsky.social for the invite (finally actually had time to claim it 😂)