> And notably, the virus that causes COVID-19 is most transmissible before symptoms set in, so its harmfulness to its host may not be as strong an influence on how it evolves as the trade-off model suggests.

> "The virus, speaking anthropomorphically, just wants to spread and have its genes replicated," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist at Johns Hopkins University, in an interview. "If the best way for it is to spread by causing severe symptoms, it will continue to do that."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/08/facebook-p...

not sure I understand the reasoning here because the behavioral response to covid at a collective level will always depend on the harmfulness of the disease regardless of when symptoms set in.

We are going to take stronger measures against harmful diseases, and that reduces their fitness inevitably. The claim that a disease always evolves towards being more harmless is obviously not true due to mere chance, but in the long run there is a clear advantage to it. Rather than cherry-picking examples to prove the point I think it's more accurate to say the article cherry-picks counterexamples like multiple Malaria strands competing against each other in the same host or a rabbit disease that became more deadly to overcome an immune response. None of which is long-term adaptive.

We are talking about the relative evolutionary fitness of different variants, so until we have the ability to decide whether to avoid someone based on what variant they have (and may not be showing symptoms of), I don't see how behavioral response enters the picture.

Do you think Politifact is a good source for that information? I'm sure there are other less-biased alternatives that discuss that subject.

> given enough people catch this variant

Please see the point Derek Lowe makes in the first article, of Dec 2 (point which I have abridged in this page): cases of mild immune response which let the virus dwell for a long time in the organism can be the proper places for a virus to develop mutations.

Also, the paragraph closing this article of Dec 17: that the main future mutations will be of high contagiousness and low impact is a non granted possibility.

> cases of mild immune response which let the virus dwell for a long time in the organism can be the proper places for a virus to develop mutations.

that's practically irrelevant or you'd have to demand lockdowns for any virus and its uncle because they all mutate all the time. is that what you want?

> is that what you want?

Those remarks were not about policies.

Those remarks seem to remain quite valid to stress the maxim, "do not jump to conclusions" ("Careful with that reasoning, Eugene"): apparent mild symptoms, hence the idea of getting infected possibly being almost a good thing: actually, there are a number of issues one can suspect or know.

Incidentally, there are articles today (The Atlantic (Katherine J. Wu), CNA - I think - and more) about those "mild symptoms" being a definitely partial side of the story. And, importantly, "symptoms" and "_damages_" are two different things. One of the recent pieces of news mentions lowered sperm count and quality after infection with the latest variant: that is damage which is not a symptom - it is not apparent.

Policies remain a matter to be built over the base of the analysis from discipline specialists, mediated by politicians that are supposed to apply said tentative knowledge and emerging hypothetical policies in the "big picture" of the complexive networks of interests, and apply good "common" sense to restrict the "man with a hammer" syndrome typical of specialists (so that ideas in the class of "no cars, no accidents" are censored).

My policy - since you kindly show interest in my opinion -, is "Be careful as opposed to sloppy", in general, because that is the world I would want to live in. The consequences of such careful attitude policy remain to be analyzed by specialists to tentatively assess potential outcomes, nothing is granted before full consideration. (Although, I remain convinced that if that had been the applied maxim, the virus would have lasted only a few weeks before extinction, save for complications relevant to animals as vectors.)

It's not mutations that are the threat, it's mutated COVID-19.

Yeah, fair enough. I mean, after all, mutations are random, it can get worse.

I'd really like to see an analysis comparing covid to the flu. There's the vaccine and omicron making it less deadly than before, but I have no idea by how much.

I think it's really important to stress that while it is obviously great to see fewer people in hospital, that alone doesn't tell us very much about the severity of the variant, or the expected outcome in other countries.

We would already expect the number of hospitalisations second wave to be way lower, because of the effect of higher levels of immunity through vaccines and previous infection versus the first wave. The Discovery Health research from South Africa [1] suggests that Omicron might result in about 30% fewer hospitalisations versus an equivalent Delta infection, but it's still early days and it's hard to get clear data given the number of confounding factors. The early research from Imperial in the UK [2] says:

"The study finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection." with the notable qualification that "hospitalisation data remains very limited at this time."

Even if it's substantially less severe, it does seem certain from the way it's ripping through the UK at the moment that it spreads extremely quickly – and even with a lower chance of hospitalisation, we could quickly see a very large spike in the number of people requiring care, with the corresponding stress on already overstretched healthcare.

I'm definitely a bit concerned about the amount of "it's basically just a cold now!" chat we've been seeing – something we'd all like to be the case because pandemics are shite. But anecdotally I have witnessed first-hand quite a few people I know here in the UK being pretty blasé in the run up to Christmas and getting quite sick as a result.

[1] https://www.discovery.co.za/corporate/news-room#/pressreleas...

[2] https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/modelling-suggests-ra...

If only we had endless medical capacity for those who will not have it "mild"

Well, it is better than the mild ones not having it mild either, but worse.

As far as I know, mild cases are only confirmed for vaxxed people.

SA was only around 20% vaxxed when the omicron wave started and everyone with boots on the ground there seems to be saying it’s milder.

Could be.

I also heard SA has a much younger population than most western countries, so "mild" should be used with caution.

I wonder about, say, how non-vaccinated 16-25 years old people are affected by Omicron vs. Delta.

Did you find any statistics saying that?

If the mutations continue, at some point the mortality rate will likely meet the mortality rate of the seasonal flu. Hopefully we can then compare COVID to the season flu on any large media outlet / platform without being canceled, so that we can accept it as such and not rework our lives a dozen times a year around restrictions.

According to the CDC, the flu caused 12,000-52,000 deaths a year in the US between 2010-2020 [0]. While covid caused more than 800,000 deaths in the US over the past two years, and more than 36,000 US deaths over the past month alone [1]. At this point, covid is still orders of magnitude deadlier than the flu.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html [1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_totaldeaths

...it’s 12k-50k per year. So just (“just”) one order of magnitude or so.

Since June 2020, flu deaths have been in the single digits or teens most months, while covid deaths have been in the thousands or tens of thousands each month [0]. So covid is around 3 orders of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

Can't compare apples and oranges. For flu seasons, regular classification applies. For pandemics, all persons that die with Covid are Covid deaths.

Apples and oranges.

is this also a thing in the states? in germany even people who died from accidents but have tested positive for covid (either pre or post mortem) are counted as died from corona - not kidding.

- https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/panorama/corona-tote-rki-stat...

- https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Wer-zaehlt-als-Corona-Toter...

It’s a thing in the States, too, and it makes it difficult to see the facts clearly. I have no idea why we’re handling the data on COVID so differently from previous diseases and pandemics, though I’d be interested to hear a plausible, non-conspiracy-theory explanation.

Cause of death is on the death certificate, but there is no law of nature that there must be exactly one cause. The assignment of cause of death is thought to be biased in many cases, perhaps even subject to political pressure. Maintaining consistency of public health statistics about COVID19 from one time to another (or from one locale to another) is very desirable to sustain the practical usefulness of the statistics in assessing consequences of public health measures. It may be reasonable to expect that classification of COVID19/non-COVID19 deaths by public health officials based on arbitrary but more objective measures (such as time period from COVID19 diagnosis to date of death, used in the UK) may improve the value of the statistic.

> previous diseases and pandemics

This is not a new problem. Life insurance companies believe that many suicides are misreported on death certificates as accidents because the person completing the certificate does not want to prevent recovery of insurance proceeds by the deceased beneficiaries; prevention of social stigma is also thought to reduce reporting of AIDS, STD's, suicide, liver disease, recreational drugs, etc as a cause of death.

There may be arguments for decades to come about who did well in controlling COVID-19 and who told the truth about it.

> I have no idea why

We are why. We are the subjects of both politics and medicine, a disconsonant duo locked in an awkward embrace, and they want to embrace us, gently guide us, and disturb us a little as possible, because we determine both the course of the pandemic and the will of the governed in the nations we inhabit, jostling about and wondering why.

During the pandemic, the CDC has been also been counting deaths with the flu [0]. So we do have an apples to apples comparison. And covid has been around 3 orders of magnitude more deadly than the flu.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/index.htm

I thought the pushback on the comparison to flu was the conclusion that's intended to draw. The 2018 flu outbreak hospitalized approximately 710,000 Americans[0]. Public health professionals generally thing flu should have more public attention, so saying we should be unconcerned because now we have another disease as impactful as flu, I can see them objecting.

0. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html

> likely meet the mortality rate of the seasonal flu

We should consider the possiblity that we are already there with omicron.

There is no guarantee of that at all. Many diseases get worse over time

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/dec/08/facebook-p...

> Hopefully we can then compare COVID to the season flu on any large media outlet

It will never happen, humans take more and more to recover from traumatic events and people who claim that it's time to put the traumatic event behind our back and go on with our lives are singled out as irresponsible .

See the 2008 financial crisis, we are still doing QE, Fed balance sheet would never go back to normal , we have scam companies worth hundreds of billions and perhaps the most scammy one just went above a trillion in financial value with no real tangible product presence in a market in which commands a 1% presence.

I guess it depends on the person, but this doesn't square with what I see, and I live in what's considered a very liberal area with relatively strict mandates. People are going to bars & clubs, eating out, holiday shopping, etc. Even people who are being more cautious right now are itching to get out and do stuff. I think we'll recover just fine.